01 / Section
Process maps miss real-world variation
Most process maps begin with an interview, a workshop, or an old operating procedure. Those sources are useful, but they describe how work is remembered or expected to happen. The completed task often crosses more tools, exceptions, and handoffs than the diagram shows.
That gap matters. Improving an imagined process can produce a cleaner diagram without improving the work itself. A better starting point is a specific outcome and the evidence left behind while someone reached it.
02 / Section
Review one completed task at a time
An app visit is not a process. A browser tab is not a task. Shadow organizes captured context into batches, then connects whole batches when the evidence supports one completed attempt at an outcome.
This keeps the review centered on the work: what the person was trying to finish, which systems were involved, and the order in which meaningful steps occurred.
03 / Section
Link workflow steps to their source
Evidence links let a reviewer move from a workflow summary back to the relevant captured context and check the details directly.
A citation shows where a claim came from. Reviewers still decide whether the interpretation is complete and whether an exception changes the conclusion.
04 / Section
Compare the documented and actual process
Place the reconstructed attempt beside the intended process. Look for missing handoffs, duplicate entry, recurring detours, and steps that exist only in the documentation. Then ask which differences are necessary and which deserve a closer look.
This comparison gives the team a concrete basis for deciding what to keep and what to change.