How the workflow operates

MapToc is being designed to sit alongside the documentation tools a program already uses. The workflow below explains the intended roles and hand-offs, from connecting a shared folder to preparing a report. The connections, alerts and export functions described here are planned capabilities, not claims about a live service.

1. Administrator: connect approved folders

An administrator would connect selected shared Google Drive folders through an authorized sign-in and permission process. The connection should be limited to the program sources the organization has approved. It should not grant indiscriminate access to staff members' personal files.

The proposed integration would detect new or updated files using change notifications and follow-up checks. The implementation must handle expired permissions, duplicate files and source revisions. Detection should not be described as instantaneous or infallible before those behaviours are tested.

2. Field staff: keep producing normal updates

Field staff would save routine Word documents, PDFs and program updates in the agreed folders. MapToc's aim is to make use of those existing reports rather than ask staff to re-enter the same narrative in another portal. The pilot must establish how much setup, source preparation and correction this actually requires.

Where a connection is unavailable, a deliberately contributed update or upload remains a possible starting point. The organization should decide what belongs in the record and which sensitive material must be excluded or redacted.

3. MapToc AI: propose relevant evidence

The system would read supported source material and propose results, material changes, decisions, risks, lessons and questions. Each proposal should keep the original passage, document attribution and available date information. A tentative observation must retain its uncertainty.

Filtering should prioritise relevance to intended outcomes. Budgets and meeting agendas should not be excluded merely because of their document type: a resource change or decision recorded there may help explain an outcome. Unreadable, incomplete or ambiguous material should be flagged rather than completed through invention.

4. M&E officer: inspect the source and proposal

A digest or review alert would bring the officer to a workbench showing the source passage beside the proposed evidence. The reviewer should be able to inspect surrounding context, check what the document actually supports and identify missing information.

The review inbox should distinguish new proposals, corrections and unresolved questions. Alert frequency must be useful to the team; more notifications are not themselves a sign of better capture.

5. M&E officer: approve and connect

The officer would approve, edit or reject an item and connect approved material to the relevant intended outcome or results-framework entry. The program record should retain who reviewed it, its source and any qualifications or conflicting evidence.

Approval establishes that the item fairly represents its source and is appropriate for the record. It does not automatically verify the underlying event, prove representativeness or establish that the program caused a result. Those judgements may require additional evidence.

6. Program manager: prepare and finalize a report

The planned reporting workflow would assemble selected approved evidence into an editable draft, with citations back to source material. A manager could then review coverage, interpret the evidence, resolve gaps and adapt the account to the intended audience.

Word exports and audience-specific templates are development directions. Donor formats require validation before compatibility can be claimed. MapToc should not label an export audit-ready merely because it contains footnotes; the team remains responsible for the final report.

What makes the workflow useful?

The useful outcome is a source-linked record built with an acceptable total effort. Pilots should measure time spent connecting, reviewing, correcting and reporting, as well as source accessibility and the accuracy of approved statements. The goal is reuse of reliable evidence, not simply a larger number of AI-generated entries.

Keep the workflow proportionate

At setup, record the grant objectives, intended outcomes, reporting periods, funding categories and named responsibilities. Where no formal results framework exists, start with the intended change and affected population; retain evolving definitions and their history.

Review a document summary and the significant claims it contains. Batch routine findings where appropriate and focus attention on uncertain links, contradictions, missing sources and material changes. The goal is not approval of every sentence.

Import agreed finance summaries at the existing reporting frequency. At a milestone review, reuse the linked record to explain progress, resource changes and unresolved outcome questions. At closure, assemble a source-linked report and evidence pack for human review.