Concept B · order-first
Order #12
3 preparations. Partially received
What has happened
- Created — 12 paid fills across 3 preparations put on a new document by Casey Review 9 days ago · 14:02
- Transmitted — order summary and patient fills sent through the approved human channel by Avery Review 8 days ago · 09:41
- Acknowledged by supplier — no acknowledgement state exists Nothing records that the supplier ever received this order. An order lost in transit and an order quietly being filled produce the same blank here.
- Received — 8 of 12 — recorded by Casey Review 2 days ago · 11:20 · 4 vials still outstanding
- Closed — not yet An order closes when every vial is received or the shortfall is written off. Writing off a shortfall is not something the console can do today.
Every line above is read from data the system already writes and renders nowhere: the order's own timestamps, the person recorded against each action, and the arrival rows.
Asked for, and received
| Preparation | Ordered | Received | Short |
|---|---|---|---|
| Semaglutide / B12 5 / 1 mg/mL · 3 mL STR-SEM-3ML |
5 | 5 | 0 |
| NAD+ 100 mg/mL · 5 mL STR-NAD-5ML |
4 | 2 | 2 |
| BPC-157 3 mg/mL · 5 mL STR-BPC-5ML |
3 | 1 | 2 |
| Total | 12 | 8 | 4 |
Four patients are waiting on a vial that has not arrived.
Documents attached to this order
2-
Order summary · order-12-summary.csv · 3 lines
-
Patient fills · order-12-patient-fills.csv · 12 rows, 17 columns
3 rows incomplete
Incomplete rows are counted here because the export is the last point at which a gap can still be caught.
What this page assumes
- The order page is the workhorse of this concept. Everything a patient-level question could need — what we asked for, what turned up, who acted, what was sent — resolves on one document page. This is where Concept B earns its two scenario wins, S8 and S9.
- Arrived is an action here, not a section. There is no "Arrived" tab: a queue implies a pile of records sitting in that state, when really you open a sent order and record what turned up. Sent stays lit because that is where #12 is filed until every vial is accounted for.
- Making demand a tab fixes the concept's characteristic failure, and this page is where the residual cost shows. The 96 waiting fills used to be a banner with no row and no destination; they are now the first tab. But order #12 is nine days old with four vials outstanding and it sits under Sent in exactly the position a healthy order would. The ledger sorts by recency, not staleness, so the tabs make things reachable without making them urgent.
- The attention strip is deliberately not repeated here. The two blocked prescriptions belong to no document, so on a document page they are a different job. Carrying the strip onto every screen would train operators to scroll past it, which is how an always-present banner stops being read at all.
- The timeline is rendered from data already written. Created, transmitted and received all store an actor and a timestamp; the measured build displays the timestamp for transmission and drops the person, which is finding F5.2. Nothing here is invented and nothing is estimated.
- The acknowledgement step is drawn as a gap, not omitted. Neither data model has an acknowledgement state, so a timeline that skipped straight from transmitted to received would quietly imply the supplier confirmed something. Showing the hole is the only honest option, and it is the one thing on this page no IA choice can fix.
- Asked-versus-received is document-shaped. A shortfall is arithmetic between two columns of the same document, which is why it belongs here and reads awkwardly in a queue. This table depends entirely on PR #926's data model: on PR #1059's model a fill on an order has no state at all, so 8 of 12 is unrepresentable and this table cannot exist.
- The correction controls are shown disabled rather than hidden. A missing button teaches an operator the action is somewhere else; a switched-off one with a reason teaches them it does not exist. The underlying gap degraded scenario S9 for all three concepts. Order #12 has already been transmitted, so a correction here would be a recorded note rather than a silent edit to a document the supplier already holds.
- What this page still cannot answer: which vial went to which patient. Lot capture exists for the internal compounding lane and has no equivalent on the supplier side, so a recall question stops at the order and cannot reach a person. PR #926 would close that gap by recording lot and beyond-use date per fill.