Approval requests vs completion receipts: choosing the right workflow
Compare approval requests and completion receipts using the same inputs, distinct worked outputs, complete briefs, and a practical decision test.
Quick answer
An approval request asks an authorized person to decide on a proposed action; a completion receipt documents what an authorized action actually produced. Use the same work records without allowing a proposal or attempted action to masquerade as completion.
Two outputs from the same inputs
Approval requests: A decision packet with the proposed scope, required authority, supporting evidence, and unanswered questions.
completion receipts: An outcome record with the action identity, approval reference, observed result, and verification gaps.
Both start from the same approved work request, approval register, and action log. Choose the purpose before asking Righthand to prepare the result; otherwise a polished draft can answer the wrong question.
Worked comparison
The following records are synthetic examples. They illustrate output differences, not product test results or customer outcomes.
| Shared input | Approval requests output | completion receipts output |
|---|---|---|
| R1: draft ready; no approval recorded | Ask owner to approve specific draft and destination | No completion receipt; retain proposal status |
| R2: approved upload; destination URL verified | Reference the approval if additional scope is proposed | Record approved action, URL, and content check |
| R3: send attempted; recipient delivery unknown | Ask only for any new action beyond existing authority | Report attempt evidence; do not claim recipient delivery |
Brief A: prepare the first workflow
Use the approved work request, approval register, and action log for October 12–16, 2026. Source fields: request ID, proposed action, intended destination, approval ID, action ID, attempted time, result evidence, reviewer. At Monday 9 AM America/Los_Angeles, prepare the approval requests output shown above as source-linked Markdown in my private review thread. Preserve original record IDs and mark uncertainty. I review the draft against the first table column’s purpose. Do not publish, send external messages, change source records, or spend money. Result check: each entry matches its source and the intended first-workflow output.
Brief B: prepare the second workflow
Use exactly the same input slice, fields, date window, and timezone. Prepare the completion receipts output shown above instead. Keep the underlying observations separate from interpretation, with a named owner for unresolved questions. Return the draft to the same review thread for my approval. Apply the same action boundaries. Result check: compare each output with the third table column; do not merely relabel Brief A’s artifact.
Righthand can help with both preparation jobs when the sources are supplied or accessible through verified assigned connections. An explicit export is a valid input route; it does not promise a native connector or continuous synchronization. See the Righthand documentation for setup and Features for task fit.
Choose by the decision ahead
Choose an approval request before an action that needs a decision or before expanding an existing authorized scope. Choose a receipt after an action, with evidence appropriate to its outcome. A reviewer saying a draft looks good may not authorize sending it to a particular recipient. Make the proposed action and destination explicit.
Failure checks and a first-run test
A success response can prove acceptance by an intermediary while leaving the final result unknown. A receipt may also attach an unrelated approval. Match request, approval, action, and destination identities; describe the strongest observed result precisely. Missing evidence should remain visible even when the attempt produced no error.
Test R3 with an action log showing acceptance but no delivery observation. The receipt must preserve that limit. Test R1 with approval deliberately absent; the preparation draft should request a decision rather than include language that suggests the action already occurred. Keep the accepted source system authoritative, and record any approved change there through its supported process. A comparison draft is evidence for your decision, not permission to alter the workflow on its own.
Review Pricing against the actual preparation and review workload. The useful evaluation is whether the accepted artifact reduces work for its intended reader, including correction effort.