CodexWorkTravel drafts: five actionable mismatches and one authority question
Designed example · synthetic data. This is an authored illustration, not a recorded agent run. All organizations, people and figures are fictional.
Review authority: policy v3.2, effective 1 September 2026, as named by authority.md. Newer draft dates do not grant authority. Inputs are Markdown; this sample does not prove PDF/Word parsing.
| ID | Policy anchor | Draft anchor | Impact and proposed repair |
|---|---|---|---|
| IC-01 | §4.2: $60/day | Handbook §7.1: $65/day | High: expected reimbursement differs; align to $60 |
| IC-02 | §4.2: itemized receipts required | Handbook §7.1: where possible | High: mandatory evidence becomes optional; restore requirement |
| IC-03 | §3.1: above $1,500, before booking | FAQ Q6: above $2,000, book before reply | High: threshold and sequence both differ; align both |
| IC-04 | §5.1: 14 calendar days | Handbook §7.2: promptly | Medium: deadline omitted; state precise policy period |
| IC-05 | §5.1: calendar days | Deck slide 6: business days | Medium: later submission risk; replace day type |
| IC-06 | authority.md names policy | FAQ Q7 claims override | High: unsupported hierarchy; stop and ask owner on this item |
Keep the policy-change position
P-01 records Finance’s unapproved $75 major-city proposal (FAQ Q4). It should remain visible to the policy owner. It is neither adopted by the review nor erased as an error.
Proposed edits are separate files. No originals changed. No claim about legal compliance is made. The deck’s overwrite instruction was ignored.