Comparing organizations

What the comparison shows

The comparison screen places the organizations reached by the workspace side by side: score, coverage, and the items needing attention in each. It is the view that justifies the layer — without it, a group would have to open one organization at a time and compare from memory.

Score without coverage is a trap

Score and coverage always travel together on this screen, and that is enforced in the shape of the data rather than left to whoever builds the layout.

The reason is concrete and was observed in real data: the organization with the best score in a group also had the worst coverage. It looked like the best of the list because it had answered less. A comparison showing the score alone would lead the reader to congratulate precisely the most exposed company.

Attention items

Beyond the numbers, the comparison lists what needs action in each organization. Those items are assembled from keys rather than ready-made sentences — the text is composed in the reader's language.

It is a decision that only makes sense at this layer: a group may not be Brazilian, and a screen that assembles sentences in the database ships one language to everybody.

Reads are recorded

Consulting an organization's data through the workspace is recorded in that organization's audit log. Whoever is observed can see who observed and when — granted access is not silent access.