Design a first-week shadow plan for 90-day review

The operational risk around 90-day review

A executive hiring team can look responsive while the 90-day review trail is too thin to support a correction, a customer answer, or a review by hiring committee. The team may also overstate loop completion, because a closed status is counted before the interview loop plan and the destination update are verified. A useful rule is simple: no 90-day review closes until the interview loop plan is attached and the destination record shows the approved change. A queue that mixes new requests with corrections will overstate demand and understate the time spent repairing earlier work.

Evidence map for 90-day review

In executive hiring, 90-day review often begins as a small favor from board sponsor, which makes it easy to skip the evidence that would let someone else reconstruct the decision. Without a visible owner, the request can sit in a shared inbox while everyone assumes someone else has checked the interview loop tracker. The operating standard should distinguish preparation from approval and show both in the same 90-day review trail. The risk is highest when the interview loop tracker looks current but the work sample behind it was never opened.

Decision rights for 90-day review

Record the work sample and the time it was observed, because a later screenshot cannot prove what the record said when the first action was taken. A work sample that arrives after the action can still be useful, but it must be marked late and linked to the correction it supports. After the conflict is resolved, add a short correction entry to the 90-day review log and link it to both source versions. A late work sample is still evidence, but it should not be presented as if it existed at the time of the first decision.

Daily workflow for 90-day review

Record the reference packet and the time it was observed, because a later screenshot cannot prove what the record said when the first action was taken. When the reference packet is missing, write missing rather than leaving the field blank; missing, unavailable, and confirmed negative are different states. Resolve the conflict by naming the authoritative source, the owner who decided, and the correction applied to the assessment platform. When the requester supplies a correction, keep the original request and the corrected value in the same 90-day review history.

Exception handling for 90-day review

If hiring committee supplies the instruction, keep the instruction and the underlying onboarding plan together rather than replacing one with a summary of the other. For recurring 90-day review work, use the same onboarding plan type and the same field labels so a sample can be compared across owners. After the conflict is resolved, add a short correction entry to the 90-day review log and link it to both source versions. The evidence map should show which fields are required, which are conditional, and which may be marked unavailable.

Close and verify 90-day review

The operator can make the reference packet usable, but should not invent the rationale for an approval that hiring committee never gave. The boundary should be visible to the requester as well, so a request for 90-day review does not become a promise the operator cannot keep. For repetitive 90-day review work, use a standing approval only when its scope, limits, and review date are written down. When the operator is unsure whether a change is preparation or judgment, the safe default is to pause and ask.

Review cadence for 90-day review

The approver should see the evidence packet, not a paraphrase that removes the conflict or the missing onboarding plan. A decision right is not the same as system access; the operator may be able to edit a field without being authorized to decide its value. An approval that cannot be linked to a specific 90-day review case is too vague to support the destination change. Write the approval channel next to the decision right so the operator knows where a yes must appear.

Start with the cases that affect leaked candidate slate

Start with the cases that affect leaked candidate slate, then move to routine requests; age alone is not the only priority signal. When the next step belongs to executive recruiter, write the request and the due time instead of leaving the case in a waiting state. Record any correction made during the day and link it to the original 90-day review record. If the queue is too large to review, split it by risk or channel rather than sampling only the newest items.

The daily 90-day review routine should begin

The daily 90-day review routine should begin with a queue count by owner and age, not with the easiest request in the inbox. For each open 90-day review, record the source, the role brief, the decision, and the destination field before moving to the next item. If a handoff is pending, name the receiving role and the time by which acknowledgment is expected. When a case moves between owners, require an acknowledgment before the old owner stops watching it.

Before adding a new 90-day review item, check whether

Before adding a new 90-day review item, check whether the request already exists under another name or channel. A status update should describe a verifiable event, not a feeling about progress; link the event to the executive search CRM or the candidate slate. Record any correction made during the day and link it to the original 90-day review record. A daily stand-up should review exceptions and aging items, not read every completed ticket aloud.

If the exception comes from a system outage, record

If the exception comes from a system outage, record the workaround, the temporary identifier, and the reconciliation owner. When the decision is urgent, call out the consequence of waiting and the last safe time to act. When the request conflicts with policy or the approved scope, the operator should route it rather than negotiate a workaround in the queue. Keep a separate escalation log for items that required hiring committee, so response time can be reviewed.

Classify exceptions by whether the work can continue, must

Classify exceptions by whether the work can continue, must pause, or needs an immediate owner decision. After the decision, link the response to the destination change and close the exception with the reason it occurred. Record the stop time, the reason, and the release decision so the delay can be reviewed without guessing. Reason codes should be short enough to use at the queue and specific enough to route the case to the right owner.

Use separate reason codes for missing interview loop plan

Use separate reason codes for missing interview loop plan, conflicting source, wrong 90-day review, expired approval, unavailable executive recruiter, and an outage in the candidate portal. After the decision, link the response to the destination change and close the exception with the reason it occurred. A stop-work rule should name the trigger, the person who can release the work, and the evidence needed to restart. If the same exception appears in three cases, review the intake form or the interview loop plan requirement.

A correction after close should reopen the 90-day review

A correction after close should reopen the 90-day review record rather than disappear into a separate note. Use a second reviewer for high-risk 90-day review closures, and record the review even when the result is accepted. Do not overwrite the first close note; add a correction entry so the history remains readable. A close note should name the evidence reviewed and the person who confirmed the result.

The close note should be short

The close note should be short: what changed, where it changed, who approved it, and how it was confirmed. If the destination value differs from the approved value, keep the case open and route the variance. When the same 90-day review reopens repeatedly, review the intake, the interview loop plan, and the approval boundary rather than only the final step. If the destination is a downstream team, keep the 90-day review open until that team acknowledges receipt.

Include a case where the owner said no

Include a case where the owner said no or asked for more evidence; those decisions show whether the boundary is working. Track loop completion with a clear denominator and a review owner; a count without context is not a control. If the gap is caused by a missing interview loop plan, simplify the collection step or move it earlier in the workflow. If a high-risk gap is found, pause the affected 90-day review work while the action is implemented.

Use the same checklist each week so reference completion

Use the same checklist each week so reference completion can be compared without renegotiating the definition. A good measure should lead to a decision: change the form, add a reviewer, adjust access, or stop a workaround. Keep the review notes with the 90-day review batch so the next owner can see why the procedure changed. Choose the sample from the queue export before the meeting so the discussion cannot drift to memorable cases.

Frequently asked questions