Dispatch approval belongs to an exact assignment version
ARC ties every dispatch proposal to an exact assignment version, authority epoch and address. A reviewer can see which request was approved and why, while a changed address or rule starts a new decision instead of reusing old authority.
An approval goes stale when the facts it approved are no longer true. A changed address, a new restriction or a different client rule can make yesterday's dispatch decision the wrong one today. ARC needed a way to keep the historical decision without letting it become new authority.
The answer is an exact dispatch proposal tied to an assignment version, authority epoch and address. It records a requested operation and grants no physical authority by itself.
The proposal carries its own context
A generic "approved" flag can't answer what was approved. The proposal names the assignment version, the authority context and the address that the reviewer saw. The action also carries its trigger, reason and outcome.
That record gives the reviewer something concrete to decide. It also gives the next actor a test: does the current assignment still match the proposal that was approved?
If it doesn't, the system needs a new proposal. Reusing the old approval would turn a historical decision into authority it was never meant to carry.
Rules decide and workflows sequence
The product separates policy decisions from the order of work. Rules decide whether an action is allowed. Workflows coordinate the durable sequence around that decision.
This keeps the dispatch proposal within the same governed action boundary used by other business mutations. A person, agent, integration or background service doesn't get a side door around current authorization, policy, idempotency or required approval.
The workflow can resume without repeating a completed mutation. The policy decision remains attached to the exact request that produced it.
A refusal gives the agent a new plan
A blocked action records a refusal with its reason and stops that attempt.
That gives an agent something useful to re-plan around. It can gather different evidence, propose another route or leave the case with a person. An independent hold still has to be resolved independently; a clever alternative doesn't dissolve it.
The same boundary applies to urgent stops. Analytical projections can help a reviewer understand the operation, but they never provide live clearance. Current policy and independent fences remain authoritative.
What the reviewer gets
The reviewer sees a bounded context envelope with evidence permitted for this actor, subject, task and purpose. It includes where each record came from, its freshness, omissions and conflicts. That evidence informs the decision but grants no authority of its own.
For the recovery operator, this creates a readable approval trail. For the lender, it explains which exact request was approved and why. For the field team, it prevents an old approval from silently becoming a new instruction.
For anyone reviewing the operation later, the approval remains a specific record of what was allowed, by whom, on which evidence and under which client rules. Exact proposals make that clear.
Take an illustrative assignment, ARC-1042. At 9:00 the reviewer approves a dispatch to a workplace lot, and the proposal records that exact address and assignment version. At 14:00 fresh evidence puts the vehicle at a gated lot across town. The morning approval remains useful history, but it does not answer the new question. The agent creates another proposal with the new address, current holds and the route available in the client's window. A person reviews that proposal instead of inheriting a green light from a different place.
The changed address forced the right decision. The proposal preserved the earlier approval as evidence while the new evidence created a new question, so the reviewer could see both the history and the reason the operation had to change. Exact versions kept the two decisions connected without confusing them.
That is the useful record. A reviewer can move from the current assignment back to the exact proposal and understand both what changed and what remained true, without mistaking a new decision for a correction of the old one. The history stays intact while the operation moves to the evidence that exists now. An exact proposal gives the next reviewer a stable point of comparison, showing which assignment version, address and authority context produced the decision and why a later proposal had to replace it. Nothing gets lost.
Frequently asked questions
Is an approved dispatch proposal physical authority?
No. It records an exact requested operation. Physical execution depends on the applicable authority and current state, not on treating the proposal as a blanket permit.
Why not reuse an approval when only the address changes?
The address is part of what was approved. A different address is a different proposal and needs its own policy and approval evaluation.
Can an analytical dashboard clear a dispatch?
No. A projection may help someone understand the case, but it never provides live clearance. The governed action boundary and independent stops decide what may proceed.