Macro governance register for support approval

Use one register for every proposed macro before it reaches the queue. This gives approvers a consistent record of what the macro does, when an agent may use it, and what must change before release. It is for support operations managers and knowledge owners who approve reusable customer replies.

The method below separates the model's first review from the human approval decision. That matters because a fluent draft can still cite the wrong policy, omit a required field, or create a promise your team cannot keep.

1. Set up the review pack

Create one review pack for each macro. Store it in the same place as the proposed macro and its approval record. Use stable identifiers, not filenames such as final-v3.

Include these items:

• Macro ID: the unique identifier used in your helpdesk or macro library.
• Macro text: the exact customer-facing reply, including subject line or internal note where relevant.
• Purpose: one sentence explaining the customer outcome the macro is meant to support.
• Trigger: the queue condition, ticket category, tag, customer action or agent decision that permits use.
• Owner: the named team or role responsible for keeping the macro current.
• Policy source: the approved internal article, process document or service rule that supports each material claim.
• Required placeholders: fields such as [customer name], [order number], [case reference] or [next step date].
• Known exclusions: cases where an agent must not use the macro.

Do not replace the policy source with a short summary written for the review. Attach or paste the relevant policy extract and give it a document title, section heading and revision date. The reviewer needs to trace each operational statement back to a source.

2. Define the register before you review

Create a table called the macro governance register. One row represents one proposed macro and one proposed release decision. If the macro changes after review, create a new review row or revision record. Do not overwrite the evidence for an earlier decision.

Use these columns:

Register field	What to record	What good looks like
Macro ID and revision	Identifier, revision label and review date	A reviewer can locate the exact text reviewed
Purpose	Customer outcome and operational use	Narrow enough to distinguish it from similar macros
Trigger	Conditions that allow use	Observable ticket facts, tags or workflow states
Owner	Responsible role or team	One accountable owner, not “Support”
Policy source	Document, section and revision date	Every material promise is traceable
Required placeholders	Fields an agent must complete	Each placeholder is named and use is explained
Tone risks	Wording that may sound dismissive, certain, blaming or overly informal	Risks point to exact phrases
Recommendation	Approve, Amend or Reject	Decision is supported by reasons
Required changes	Specific edits and evidence needed	Another person can complete the work without guessing

Keep the final recommendation controlled. Use only Approve, Amend or Reject. This makes reports and release controls easier to run.

3. Give the model a constrained review task

Paste the review pack and ask the model to produce a draft register entry. Tell it to distinguish a fact found in the policy source from an inference about the macro. Ask it to quote the phrase that creates each risk.

Use this prompt structure:

Review this proposed support macro against the supplied policy source.

Return one macro governance register entry with these fields:
Macro ID and revision; purpose; trigger; owner; policy source;
required placeholders; tone risks; recommendation; required changes.

Rules:
- Use only the supplied material.
- Mark missing evidence as “not evidenced”.
- Do not infer a policy, entitlement, timeframe or customer outcome.
- For every tone risk, quote the exact macro wording and explain the risk.
- Recommend Approve only when the trigger, owner, policy source and placeholders are complete and the reply makes no unsupported promise.
- Recommend Amend when a bounded correction can make it releasable.
- Recommend Reject when the intended use is unclear, the source conflicts with the macro, or the macro should be replaced rather than edited.

[Paste review pack here]

Use the same prompt for every macro in a release batch. You may adjust the wording as your process matures, but record the prompt version in your review log. Model behaviour and available limits are version-dependent, so check the xAI documentation overview before building an automated review step around a particular capability.

4. Check the draft register against the source

Treat the model output as a reviewer’s worksheet. A knowledge owner or delegated approver must check it before changing the macro status.

Read the macro and policy source side by side. Then complete these checks in order:

1. Check the trigger. Confirm that an agent can identify it from ticket facts or workflow state. Replace vague triggers such as “when appropriate” with a specific condition.
2. Check each customer-facing promise. This includes actions, eligibility, timeframes, refunds, credits, contact methods and next steps. If the policy does not support it, remove it or mark the macro Amend.
3. Check placeholders. Confirm that each required field appears in the macro, is formatted consistently and cannot be left as visible bracketed text.
4. Check ownership. Name the role that reviews the source when a policy changes. A macro without an owner will drift.
5. Check tone risks in context. A phrase such as “we cannot help” may be correct but incomplete. Require a clear next action where your policy allows one.
6. Check the recommendation. The reasons must match the evidence, not merely the overall quality of the prose.

5. Apply the decision consistently

Use this decision rule across all queue teams:

If you find this	Record this decision	Next action
Clear trigger, current source, named owner and no unsupported claims	Approve	Publish the approved revision and set the next review date
Missing placeholder, unclear tone, small wording mismatch or incomplete source reference	Amend	Assign exact edits and return it for re-review
Conflicting policy, unclear use case, unsafe promise or no accountable owner	Reject	Withdraw the draft and request a new macro brief

For Amend, write a change that can be tested. “Improve tone” is not enough. Write: “Replace ‘You failed to provide’ with ‘We still need [document name] to continue’, then add the policy-supported submission route.”

For Reject, preserve the review row. Rejected macros show recurring gaps in the macro intake process, particularly vague triggers and absent policy ownership.

6. Audit the register after release

Sample released macros from each queue at a regular interval. Compare the macro used in tickets with the approved text and register entry. Look for agents selecting a macro outside its trigger, manually deleting placeholders, or adding promises in free text.

The output is wrong when it sounds confident but cannot answer one of these questions: Which policy section supports this statement? What exact event permits use? Who updates it? What must the agent fill in? If any answer is absent, treat the recommendation as Amend or Reject, even if the language reads well.

When the process does not work, do not widen the prompt first. Inspect the review pack. Most failures come from an unclear trigger, missing policy extract, mixed revisions or a macro trying to cover several customer situations. Split the macro into separate drafts, restore the missing source material, then run the same register review again.