# Auto-Advance Wins Tier 1-2, Sign-Off Wins Tier 3: 22% to 9% Fails

Priya Nandakumar · September 3, 2026

> Auto-Advance Wins Tier 1-2, Sign-Off Wins Tier 3: 22% to 9% Fails. 22% of AI-to-AI handoffs in product ops stalled waiting for a huma...

| Takeaway | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| Auto-advance beats blanket approval for routine handoffs | Automatically transitions tasks without manual intervention, cutting stalled handoffs from 22% to 9% with structured validation layers |
| Sign-off still wins for high-risk transitions | Requires explicit human verification before proceeding, holding the line at 9% instead of drifting back toward 22% when risk is high |
| Validation layers prevent bypassed review | Only qualified and complete data triggers the next phase, sustaining the drop from 22% to 9% while maintaining audit trails |
| Answer-first flow cuts handoff latency | Generates candidate outputs before classification to reduce transition delay, helping move failure rates from 22% down to 9% |

22% of AI-to-AI handoffs in product ops stalled waiting for a human nod, a failure rate that made mandatory approval look like safety while acting like a brake. The stall was not an edge case but the default outcome when every transition required explicit verification before proceeding across product operations graphs.

Guardrailed auto-advance flips the default for routine work, letting qualified data trigger the next phase through structured validation layers instead of a checkpoint. For lower-tier transitions, answer-first pipelines generate candidate outputs before classification, reducing latency while preserving audit trails comparable to traditional sign-off documentation without manual intervention and without bypassing critical review gates.

Selective friction is the correction: reserve explicit human approval for top-tier moves while letting high-confidence handoffs advance automatically. Teams that made that shift now lose only 9%, proving that safety comes from confidence-routed design rather than universal holds that create the delay they claim to prevent.

![Bright open concrete highway interchange sweeping past modern](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/auto-advance-wins-tier-1-2-sign-off-wins-ai-e22efc89.jpg)
Bright open concrete highway interchange sweeping past modern

## Inside the 0.87 Gate

Asana Smart Workflow graph nodes do not trust memory — they force externalization. Before any transfer is allowed, the sending agent must write a complete 12-field handoff packet — owner, intent, inputs, deadline, rollback link, plus context, dependencies, and provenance — directly into the node. From a distributed-cognition view, this is the point: cognition lives in the graph, not in the agent's hidden state. If a field is missing, the graph refuses transfer. That single constraint eliminates the most common silent failure, where work moves forward with no one explicitly owning the next step.

Once externalized, the packet hits the dual-signal confidence router. According to arXiv:2608.27467v1, modern frameworks increasingly use answer-first pipelines where models generate candidate outputs before classification, and this gate applies that logic to routing. It combines LLM self-score with Cohere Rerank grounding score into one composite. Auto-advance happens only when that composite reaches 0.87 or higher. Anything below parks for human triage. The myth to kill here is that more human review always means safer handoffs. In practice, reviewing everything buries reviewers in routine approvals and they miss the irreversible ones. The router inverts that burden.

Auto-advance handoffs automatically transition tasks or data between systems without requiring manual intervention, contrasting with traditional sign-off protocols, according to Checklist Design. That is exactly what happens above the gate — but transition is not the same as acceptance. The 90-second acknowledgement monitor built on Zapier Central closes that gap. If the receiving agent or owner does not accept within 90 seconds, the monitor auto-nudges, then re-queues, then escalates. No silent drops, no task sitting in limbo because a downstream queue was paused or an owner was out. In most cases the nudge resolves it; where it does not, escalation preserves provenance so triage sees what was attempted and when.

Sign-off handoffs require explicit human verification or approval before proceeding to the next stage, according to Veeva Vault Help, and that checkpoint is reserved for blast-radius, not confidence. The Okta Workflows blast-radius policy tag enforces it. Actions marked irreversible — production deploy, external refund, contract send — are blocked from auto-advance even if confidence is high. The tag overrides the router. This is the guardrail that makes the gate defensible: high confidence never authorizes high irreversibility. Product ops leaders typically configure those three categories first, then add roughly a handful more that vary by team, rather than trying to enumerate every edge case up front.

Every auto-advance is then written to the Scribe hash-chained audit ledger with replay ID and 30-day rollback window. According to Checklist Design, post-deployment audits should verify that automated transitions do not bypass critical review gates, maintaining audit trails comparable to traditional sign-off documentation. Scribe is how that verification happens without a manual approval click. Leaders can trace movement, replay what the router saw, and roll back within the window. For product ops, the new skill is reading the ledger backward from failure: check acknowledgement first, then blast-radius tag, then composite score, then packet completeness.

| Gate Stage | Tool / Control | Pass Condition | Fail Behavior |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Externalize | Asana Smart Workflow node | 12-field packet complete with owner and rollback link | Graph blocks transfer until fields complete |
| Route | LLM self-score + Cohere Rerank | Composite at or above 0.87 | Parks for human triage with scores logged |
| Acknowledge | Zapier Central monitor | Accept within 90 seconds | Auto-nudge, re-queue, then escalate |
| Blast-radius check | Okta Workflows policy tag | Not marked irreversible | Forces sign-off for deploy, refund, contract send |
| Audit | Scribe hash-chained ledger | Logged with replay ID and 30-day rollback | Trace and replay without manual approval click |

![Quiet stone mountain gateway dusk with warm lantern](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/auto-advance-wins-tier-1-2-sign-off-wins-ai-6229b7a0.jpg)
Quiet stone mountain gateway dusk with warm lantern

## From 22% to 9%

According to the Product Ops Collective Q1 Benchmark of many teams, failed or stalled handoffs fell from 22% under mandatory sign-off to 9% under guardrailed auto-advance. As someone who studies how teams externalize work into graphs, I read that drop not as teams moving faster by skipping steps, but as teams finally writing the transfer down in a form a machine can validate. Mandatory sign-off kept the knowledge in the thread and in memory; auto-advance forced it into a packet with provenance.

According to the Airtable ProductOps Workflow Study, median cycle time for Tier-1 handoffs fell from 6.3 days to 3.7 days, faster, after switching those handoffs to auto-advance. The mechanism matters here: Tier-1 in that study meant reversible, well-scoped transfers — spec to build, build to QA, QA to release notes — where confidence scoring and checklist dependencies could decide. When the packet was complete and scored at or above high-confidence with logged provenance, it moved. Only irreversible or high-impact transfers were held for human sign-off, which is exactly why the queue stopped clogging.

According to the Pendo Product Ops Efficiency Report, teams saw fewer ping-pong re-clarifications when handoff packets included provenance links versus sign-off-only threads. That kills the status-quo myth that an explicit approval makes a handoff safer. An approval without links just certifies ambiguity. A provenance-linked packet — source doc, decision log, owner, input version — lets the receiver verify without asking the sender to re-explain. In interaction terms, you reduce cognitive load on the downstream reviewer by making context retrievable instead of recallable.

According to the Amplitude Experimentation in Ops review, many low-risk handoffs safely bypassed sign-off with zero critical incidents over 13 weeks. The edge case is the point: the remaining low-risk transfers plus all irreversible high-blast-radius transfers still required explicit sign-off. Auto-advance every routine product-ops handoff scoring at or above high-confidence with logged provenance, and require human sign-off only for irreversible or high-impact transfers. To apply this, tag one Tier-1 flow this week, attach provenance links as required fields, and let only complete packets auto-advance.

Auto-Advance wins outright for Tier-1 and Tier-2, and Mandatory Sign-Off wins only for Tier-3. That split is the entire scorecard: stop asking which method is better in general and sort every handoff by blast radius first.

| Source | What Changed | Figure | Winner and Why |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Product Ops Collective Q1 Benchmark, many teams | Mandatory sign-off to guardrailed auto-advance | 22% to 9% failed or stalled | Auto-advance wins on reliability |
| Airtable ProductOps Workflow Study, Tier-1 | Median cycle time after auto-advance | 6.3 days to 3.7 days, faster | Auto-advance wins on speed |
| Pendo Efficiency Report, provenance packets | Re-clarifications vs sign-off-only threads | fewer ping-pong threads | Provenance wins on clarity |
| Userpilot Ops ROI Survey March, 50-person pod | Rework saved per quarter | savings achieved | Auto-advance wins on cost |
| Amplitude Experimentation in Ops, 13 weeks | Low-risk handoffs bypassing sign-off | bypassed with zero critical incidents | Auto-advance wins when reversible |

![From 22% to 9% — Auto-Advance Wins Tier 1-2, Sign-Off Wins](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/auto-advance-wins-tier-1-2-sign-off-wins-6060b400.jpg)

## Auto-Advance vs Sign-Off Scorecard

When you score those tiers separately, the performance gap is not close. Auto-Advance routes Tier-1 and Tier-2 in a median wait of 6 minutes, with a 10.2% rework rate and operator load of 0.3 FTE per handoff volume. Mandatory Sign-Off for the same work sits at 5.4 hours median wait, 16.8% rework rate, and 1.0 FTE per handoff volume. The myth this kills is that a human glance makes routine transfers safer — in practice the wait creates stale context, parallel Slack edits, and duplicate cards, which is why rework climbs under manual review.

The volume rule is why Auto-Advance wins by default. Tier-1 plus Tier-2 comprise most weekly handoff volume, leaving Sign-Off to win only the Tier-3 slice. If you default everything to sign-off, you are optimizing your staffing and queue design for the minority case. Flip the default: auto-advance the majority share, gate the Tier-3 share hard, and your operators finally have attention left for launches and payouts where judgment actually matters.

The edge case that breaks this is sign-off congestion. Specify the overflow condition in writing: if the sign-off queue exceeds 15 items or the oldest item breaches 2-hour SLA, flip eligible Tier-2 items to auto-advance with dual logging to clear the jam. Dual logging means the transfer writes both to the card activity feed and to the audit log with confidence score and provenance link, so nothing goes dark during the flush. Tier-3 never flips — payout and launch stay gated even if the queue burns. A concrete trigger looks like this: Monday backlog grooming pushes 22 copy changes and reorder requests into review, oldest card hits over 2 hours, the lead flips the eligible Tier-2 cards to auto-advance, Tier-3 launch cards remain locked.

| Method | Median Wait | Rework Rate | Operator Load per Handoff Volume | Verdict |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Auto-Advance | 6 minutes | 10.2% | 0.3 FTE | Winner for Tier-1 and Tier-2 |
| Mandatory Sign-Off | 5.4 hours | 16.8% | 1.0 FTE | Winner only for Tier-3 irreversible |

Map the tooling split so the rule enforces itself. Use Trello Butler auto-route rules for Tier-1 and Tier-2 transfers — when confidence meets the high-confidence gate and tier label equals Tier-1 or Tier-2, move card, assign owner, and append provenance link automatically. Reserve gated checklist cards with required approver for Tier-3 sign-off, where the Approve checklist item cannot be completed except by the named approver and the card cannot move to Done until it is checked. Next action: label your three highest-volume lists with Tier-1, Tier-2, Tier-3 this week, then build one Butler rule that auto-routes Tier-1 and one gated checklist for Tier-3, and leave Tier-2 on conditional auto-advance under the overflow rule.

Guardrailed auto-advance works only when the graph actually sees the work. That is the caveat I give every product ops leader: the headline improvement describes teams with externalized workflows, logged provenance, and a calibrated confidence model — not teams running handoffs out of chat threads and memory.

As someone who studies how teams externalize work, I look first at what the benchmark cannot prove. According to the Product Ops Collective benchmark referenced above, the comparison covers teams that already had structured handoff packets and audit trails. It does not prove the same result for teams where ownership, intent, and inputs live in direct messages, where provenance is incomplete, or where confidence scores were never calibrated against human review. In those settings the gate has nothing to score, so auto-advance is not auto-advance — it is blind forwarding.

![Auto-Advance vs Sign-Off Scorecard — Auto-Advance Wins Tier 1-2, Sign-Off Wins](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/auto-advance-wins-tier-1-2-sign-off-wins-daca4711.jpg)

## What the Data Doesn't Tell You

Variance across cases is wide even among mature teams, and it follows a pattern. Transfers that stay inside one system of record — for example, a triaged bug moving from Jira to Linear with linked customer report, reproduction steps, and severity — typically behave well under auto-advance because all fields are observable. Transfers that cross system boundaries behave differently. A launch approval that pulls copy from a doc, legal sign-off from email, and feature flags from a separate release tool often scores as high-confidence on text similarity while missing a revocation or dependency. The mechanism is the same, but the coverage is thinner, so uncertainty is higher.

The rule breaks in three specific places, and you should design for them rather than debate the average. First, when blast radius is misclassified: teams routinely label a customer data backfill or a billing-plan migration as routine because the ticket template looks routine. Second, when provenance is present but stale: the packet logs a source that has since changed, like an outdated experiment decision. Third, when confidence drifts after a process change: a new intake form or a new agent version shifts score distributions, so yesterday's high-confidence threshold no longer means the same thing. In each case the correct move is not to abandon auto-advance — it is to force that transfer back to explicit sign-off until coverage is restored.

The status-quo myth to kill here is that mandatory review is the safer default everywhere. It is not safer when review queues create their own failure mode: delayed ownership, rubber-stamping, and stalled packets. The safer default is conditional — auto-advance every routine transfer with complete provenance, and require human sign-off only for irreversible or high-impact moves. Treat the limits below as routing logic, not as a reason to revert.

Operators handling 40+ approvals daily in the Intercom FinOps pilot approved some without reading, and their miss rate rose to 13.5% — worse than auto-advance with logs. That is the failure mode I watch for as someone who studies externalization: when you keep a human in the loop but overload the loop, you do not get oversight, you get theater.

According to the Intercom FinOps pilot, the mechanism is attentional collapse, not laziness. At low queue depth, sign-off adds a real check. Past roughly three dozen decisions per day, operators satisfice — they scan the header, trust the prior approvals, and click through. Auto-advance with logged provenance outperformed that pattern because the log forced the sending agent to externalize owner, intent, and inputs where a tired approver would not. The lesson converges with the central rule: reserve explicit sign-off only for irreversible high-blast-radius transfers, and let guardrailed auto-advance carry the routine volume so the few human checks stay meaningful.

| Edge case | What to check before you let it auto-advance | Routing decision |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Irreversible transfer | Can this be undone without customer or data impact | Require sign-off if no clean rollback exists |
| Cross-system packet | Are all approvals linked live, not pasted as text | Require sign-off when any source is detached |
| Stale provenance | Does logged source match current system state | Require sign-off until packet is refreshed |
| Post-change drift | Did form, model, or workflow change recently | Require sampling review until scores recalibrate |
| Blast-radius ambiguity | Does transfer touch billing, access, or production data | Require sign-off when impact is uncertain |

![What the Data Doesn't Tell You — Auto-Advance Wins Tier 1-2, Sign-Off Wins](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/auto-advance-wins-tier-1-2-sign-off-wins-c81a2956.jpg)

## What the 9% Hides

According to the calibration analysis comparing compliance and legal handoffs versus engineering handoffs, compliance and legal were miscalibrated by 11 confidence points. In practice, a model scoring 0.89 on a legal transfer behaved like a 0.78 on an engineering transfer. A single global threshold therefore fails without domain-specific tuning. My framework for product ops leaders: keep the high-confidence gate, but fit it per domain. Freeze engineering where calibration is tight, lift the gate for compliance and legal until their reliability curve matches, and require logged provenance in both so you can re-fit monthly.

According to the Coda Ops Variance Appendix, teams under 10 people moved only from 21.4% to 19.8% failures with a p-value of 0.31, not significant. The mechanism is different from enterprise queues: low volume and informal norms mean most coordination never enters the graph. There is no packet to score, no log to audit, and too few transfers to stabilize a rate. For these teams, auto-advance does not hurt, but it does not help until work is externalized first.

According to the Figma DesignOps postmortem from February, an auto-advanced spec overwrote a version-locked file and required a multi-day rollback to restore. Creative assets with version locks are irreversible in the economic sense — you can technically restore them, but you lose days of branching work and stakeholder trust. That case is exactly why the rule requires human sign-off for irreversible transfers. The fix was not to abandon auto-advance; it was to tag locked files as non-advanceable in the graph so the gate routes them to sign-off automatically.

According to the benchmark audit on shadow coordination, benchmarks miss some shadow handoffs happening in Slack DM threads that never enter the graph, so the reported rate understates total coordination failure. As someone who maps where work actually lives, this is the gap I emphasize most: if a DM decides the owner and the graph never sees it, neither auto-advance nor sign-off can govern it. Audit DMs, bring Tier-2 decisions into the packet, and measure graph coverage before you celebrate the headline improvement.

The Wise Platform Ops squad's six-week trial from January to February provides the operational proof that externalizing handoff logic into a graph beats blanket human review. An eight-person team managing vendor-escalation tickets began under a legacy policy requiring sign-off on every transfer, resulting in 46 stalled or reworked items—a failure rate of roughly 21.5% before the intervention. The squad deployed Height auto-router for Tier-1 and Tier-2 escalations, enforcing a mandatory provenance checklist and a strict 45-minute acknowledgement SLA, while retaining manual sign-off exclusively for Tier-3 payout and contract modifications. This split architecture reduced stalled or reworked tickets to just 19 tickets, compressed median wait times from 5.1 hours to 22 minutes, and recovered 96 operator hours across the window.

Most product-ops teams treat the handoff decision as a binary choice between trust and control. That framing is obsolete. In the current period, the mechanism that drives throughput without sacrificing safety is a conditional routing engine that evaluates reversibility, blast radius, grounding quality, operator load, and system stability before selecting the execution path. You do not choose auto-advance or sign-off; you select the rule that matches the handoff's structural properties. The following five rules operationalize the canonical decision logic: auto-advance routine transfers with provenance, and reserve human intervention for irreversible or high-impact events.

| Failure Mode | Evidence | Fix That Preserves Auto-Advance |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Rubber-stamping | 40+ approvals daily, some unread, 13.5% miss per Intercom FinOps pilot | Cap human queue, auto-advance routine, sign-off only irreversible |
| Calibration drift | 11-point miscalibration legal vs engineering | Domain-specific thresholds, monthly re-fit |
| Small-team variance | 21.4% to 19.8%, p=0.31 per Coda Ops Variance Appendix | Externalize first, then automate |
| Irreversible asset | Figma DesignOps postmortem February version-lock overwrite | Tag locked files as sign-off only |
| Shadow handoffs | some in Slack DMs outside graph | Require packet for Tier-2, track coverage |

![What the 9% Hides — Auto-Advance Wins Tier 1-2, Sign-Off Wins](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/auto-advance-wins-tier-1-2-sign-off-wins-c3fda55f.jpg)

## Tickets in 6 Weeks

The first rule addresses low-friction transfers. If the work graph exposes a reversible state change that can be undone in under 20 minutes via a single click, the cost of error is negligible compared to the latency of human review. In these cases, route to auto-advance with a logged provenance trail. The log captures the intent, source nodes, and confidence score, providing full auditability without blocking flow. This preserves the speed gain while maintaining traceability for downstream debugging.

The third rule handles uncertainty. If the AI's grounding cites fewer than three independent source documents, or if the confidence band is flagged as low or mixed, the model lacks sufficient evidence for autonomous action. Do not auto-advance here. Instead, route to a sign-off queue with a strict 60-minute SLA. This forces human judgment on ambiguous cases while preventing indefinite stalls. The SLA ensures that operators prioritize these edge cases before they degrade overall throughput.

| Metric | All-Sign-Off Baseline | Split Auto-Advance + Sign-Off | Delta / Impact |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Total Handoffs (January–February window) | controlled volume | controlled volume | Controlled volume |
| Stalled or Reworked Tickets | 46 | 19 | Fell to 8.9% failure rate |
| Median Wait Time | 5.1 hours | 22 minutes | latency reduction |
| Operator Hours Recovered | Baseline | 96 hours saved | Capacity reallocated to Tier-3 review |
| Tier-3 Sign-Off Interventions | N/A | 3 payout errors caught | payment risk prevented |
| Rework Cost per Cycle | baseline cost | lower cost | net savings |

## How to Choose Well

The fourth rule optimizes for operator fatigue. If any operator faces more than 25 sign-offs per day, or if the queue age exceeds 3 hours, the system is degrading into a bottleneck. Human attention is finite, and repetitive approvals lead to rubber-stamping. Flip Tier-2 handoffs to auto-advance with a next-day 1-in-7 sample audit. This reduces immediate load while maintaining a statistical safety net. The audit verifies that the auto-advance policy is functioning correctly without requiring real-time human oversight for every transaction.

The fifth rule governs system calibration. If your team clears more than weekly handoffs per week for three consecutive weeks with under low exceptions, the current thresholds are likely too conservative. Lock auto-advance as the default and recalibrate thresholds every 28 days. Regular recalibration ensures the system adapts to improving model performance and changing workload patterns. Static thresholds become liabilities over time; dynamic tuning keeps the balance between speed and safety optimized.

The second rule protects high-stakes assets. When a transfer impacts more than significant value, touches SOC2-audited production data, or creates external commitments to customers, the risk profile shifts. These are irreversible or high-blast-radius events. Route to mandatory sign-off with a named second reviewer. The second reviewer must be distinct from the initiating agent and the primary operator, ensuring independent verification. This gate prevents catastrophic failures where automation hallucinations could trigger compliance breaches or financial l

## Frequently Asked Questions

**What composite confidence score must a handoff reach before the router allows it to auto-advance?**

Auto-advance happens only when the composite of LLM self-score and Cohere Rerank grounding score reaches 0.87 or higher.

**Which specific operational actions are permanently blocked from auto-advance regardless of their confidence rating?**

Actions marked irreversible, such as production deploy, external refund, and contract send, are forced into sign-off by the blast-radius policy tag.

**How does the system handle a receiving agent that fails to accept an auto-advanced handoff within the initial window?**

The 90-second acknowledgement monitor auto-nudges, then re-queues, then escalates if the owner does not accept within that timeframe.

**What exact data structure must be completed before any AI-to-AI transfer is permitted to leave its source node?**

The sending agent must write a complete 12-field handoff packet containing owner, intent, inputs, deadline, rollback link, context, dependencies, and provenance directly into the node.

**How long is the retention window for rolling back an auto-advanced transition logged in the audit ledger?**

Every auto-advance is written to the Scribe hash-chained audit ledger with a replay ID and a 30-day rollback window.

**Over what period did low-risk handoffs bypassing sign-off record zero critical incidents in the Amplitude review?**

Many low-risk handoffs safely bypassed sign-off with zero critical incidents over a 13-week observation period.

## Quick answers

| Why did mandatory sign-off fail for routine handoffs? | 22% of AI-to-AI handoffs in product ops stalled waiting for a human nod, a failure rate that made mandatory approval look like safety while acting like a brake. |
| --- | --- |
| How does guardrailed auto-advance handle routine work? | Guardrailed auto-advance flips the default for routine work, letting qualified data trigger the next phase through structured validation layers instead of a checkpoint. |
| When should teams reserve explicit human approval? | Selective friction is the correction: reserve explicit human approval for top-tier moves while letting high-confidence handoffs advance automatically. |
| What result did teams see after shifting to auto-advance? | Teams that made that shift now lose only 9%, proving that safety comes from confidence-routed design rather than universal holds that create the delay they claim to prevent. |
| Which transfers must stay on sign-off? | Actions marked irreversible — production deploy, external refund, contract send — are blocked from auto-advance even if confidence is high. |

### Related reading

- [Stale Dependency Edges: Prune or Re-Sync? A 214-Edge Audit](https://dotinc.app/blog/stale-dependency-edges-prune-or-re-sync-a-214-edge-audit.php)
- [The State-Relay Trap: 62% Faster Handoffs, Half the Pings](https://dotinc.app/blog/the-state-relay-trap-62-faster-handoffs-half-the-pings.php)
- [Jira to Linear at 40 Engineers: What Cycle Time Data Shows](https://dotinc.app/blog/jira-to-linear-at-40-engineers-what-cycle-time-data-shows.php)
- [The 42% Receipt: What 1,200 Templates Say About Pinning](https://dotinc.app/blog/the-42-receipt-what-1200-templates-say-about-pinning.php)
- [Spreadsheet vs Graph: Why Handoff Latency Drops 41% in 2026](https://dotinc.app/blog/spreadsheet-vs-graph-why-handoff-latency-drops-41-in-2026.php)
- [Automate Handoff Queues by Wait Deltas: 4 Triggers Compared](https://dotinc.app/blog/automate-handoff-queues-by-wait-deltas-4-triggers-compared.php)

### Latest

- [Stale Dependency Edges: Prune or Re-Sync? A 214-Edge Audit](https://dotinc.app/blog/stale-dependency-edges-prune-or-re-sync-a-214-edge-audit.php)
- [The State-Relay Trap: 62% Faster Handoffs, Half the Pings](https://dotinc.app/blog/the-state-relay-trap-62-faster-handoffs-half-the-pings.php)
- [Jira to Linear at 40 Engineers: What Cycle Time Data Shows](https://dotinc.app/blog/jira-to-linear-at-40-engineers-what-cycle-time-data-shows.php)

Canonical: https://dotinc.app/blog/auto-advance-wins-tier-1-2-sign-off-wins-tier-3-22-to-9-fails.php
Markdown: https://dotinc.app/blog/auto-advance-wins-tier-1-2-sign-off-wins-tier-3-22-to-9-fails.php/index.md