Escalate the decision, not just the complaint
The fictional project assigns evidence collection to the test lead, business-rule clarification to the process owner and scope decisions to the sponsor. No reviewer may approve a changed baseline alone.
| Blocker | First owner | Escalation packet | Decision endpoint |
|---|---|---|---|
| Missing before/after record | Test lead | Case ID, known output, missing evidence | Reviewer after evidence supplied |
| Rule meaning disputed | Process owner | Baseline and two interpretations | Process owner states rule; sponsor decides scope change |
| Approver unavailable | Project coordinator | Pending decision, deadline, agreed deputy status | Named authorised deputy or still pending |
A missing approver is not automatic approval
The sponsor is away and the deadline arrives. Can the test lead mark the changed scope accepted?
Show the worked answer
Not under this fixture. Find the agreed authorised deputy; if none exists, retain pending status and surface the blocked decision. Do not invent authority from the deadline.
The route organises governance; it is not a legal dispute-resolution clause or an imposed response period. Fill actual authority and agreed times before using it.