PROCESS

Here is How to Build

Design

Exceptions

A way forward, always

Here is the moment the whole of Part 1 is built around. A Performer is at their work, and a case arrives that the rule does not fit. They cannot proceed by the rule, because for this case the rule has nothing to say. What happens next is decided not in this moment but long before it, by the designer, who must already have answered the question the Performer is now asking: what do I do? If the design has answered, the Performer proceeds. If it has not, they are stranded, left to guess, to go silent, or to invent something and hope. The way forward is the designer's answer, prepared in advance, to the Performer's question in the moment.

So the promise of this part is simple and absolute: for every exception scoped in, the Performer has a sanctioned way forward. Not a hope, not a habit, not whatever the nearest person happens to suggest, but a designed next step the Performer is entitled to take. This is what separates a design that holds from one that merely runs until it meets its first hard case. The rule covers the normal case; the way forward covers the case the rule does not fit; and between them the Performer always knows what to do. A design that leaves even one scoped-in exception without a way forward has not finished handling it.

And the way forward is designed, not improvised. The difference matters. An improvised answer is whatever the Performer or a passing manager invents under pressure, unrepeatable, unaccountable, sometimes wrong. A designed way forward was thought through when there was time to think, written or routed on purpose, the same for every Performer who meets the case. The designer's work in this discipline is to make sure that when the rule falls silent, the design speaks in its place, with an answer prepared, sanctioned, and ready. The Performer never has to invent the way forward, because the designer already did.

The highest possible standard is to give every scoped-in exception a sanctioned way forward, designed in advance and the same for every Performer who meets the case, so that when the rule does not fit, the Performer is never left to guess, to go silent, or to invent, but always has a prepared next step they are entitled to take.

Key Takeaway: When a case the rule does not fit reaches the Performer, what happens next was decided long before, by the designer, who must already have answered the question the Performer now asks: what do I do? The promise of Part 1 is absolute: every scoped-in exception has a sanctioned way forward, a designed next step the Performer is entitled to take, not a hope or whatever the nearest person suggests. And it is designed, not improvised: thought through when there was time, the same for every Performer, so when the rule falls silent the design speaks in its place.

For every scoped-in exception the Performer has a sanctioned way forward, designed in advance, never left to guess or invent.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Exceptions · Discipline 4: The Way Forward · Section: A way forward, always

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

The three tiers

A way forward comes at one of three tiers, and they rise by the authority a case needs to be resolved. The designer's task is to know which tier each exception belongs to, and to place it there.

The first and lowest tier is pre-approved. Here the answer is designed and written in advance, in a guide the Performer follows themselves, and no live approval is needed, because the approval already happened when the guide was written and signed off. This is more than giving the Performer a limit to act within, more than saying they may decide up to some threshold. It is deciding the case for them ahead of time and writing down the answer, so that meeting the exception is as simple as meeting the normal case: look up the guide, follow it, proceed. The Performer needs no one, because the design has already said what to do. The second tier is the Leader. Here the case needs a live decision, one the Performer cannot make alone but their Leader, the line manager, can. The Performer cannot proceed by a written answer, because none fits, so they carry the case up to the Leader, who has the authority to release them. The third tier is the Owner. Here the deviation is larger than a Leader may sanction, touching enough, or risking enough, that only the Owner of the area may decide. The case rises to them, and their decision is the way forward. Pre-approved needs no one; the Leader is a local decision; the Owner is the highest the area holds.

These three are not a menu to pick from by taste. They are a ladder, and where an exception sits on it is set by one thing: how much authority resolving it requires. A case whose answer can be safely written down sits at pre-approved. A case that needs a judgment within a Leader's authority sits at the Leader. A case that only the Owner may sanction sits at the Owner. The designer reads each scoped-in exception, asks how much authority its resolution truly needs, and places it at the tier that authority names, no lower, where the Performer would be acting beyond their sanction, and no higher, where a decision that could have been written down instead waits on a person who did not need to be troubled.

The highest possible standard is to know, for every scoped-in exception, how much authority its resolution requires, and to place it at the tier that authority names, pre-approved where the answer can be written down, the Leader where a local decision is needed, the Owner where only they may sanction it, no lower and no higher than the case truly demands.

Key Takeaway: A way forward comes at one of three tiers, rising by the authority a case needs. Pre-approved is the lowest: the answer is designed and written in advance in a guide the Performer follows, no live approval needed, more than a limit to act within, the case decided ahead of time. The Leader is a live local decision the line manager may make. The Owner is the highest, for deviations only the area's owner may sanction. They are a ladder, not a menu: the designer places each exception at the tier its resolution's authority names, no lower and no higher than the case truly demands.

Three tiers rise by authority: pre-approved where the answer can be written, the Leader for a local decision, the Owner where only they may sanction.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Exceptions · Discipline 4: The Way Forward · Section: The three tiers

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

The lowest tier that fits

Given the ladder, the designer's aim is clear: place each exception at the lowest tier that safely fits, and over time drive it lower still. The lower the tier, the better the design serves everyone. At pre-approved, the Performer proceeds at once, no one is interrupted, and the answer is consistent every time. At the Leader, a person must stop and decide, which costs time and pulls the Leader from other work. At the Owner, more still. Every step up the ladder is slower for the Performer and heavier for those above. So the designer pushes downward, asking of each exception not how high it could go but how low it can safely sit, and writing an answer into a guide wherever an answer can be safely written.

This is a design aim, not merely an efficiency. A process where most exceptions escalate is not a well-run process with busy managers; it is an under-designed one, its answers still living in people's heads instead of in its guides. Each case that escalates by habit is a case the designer has not yet done the work to pre-approve. So a rising share of pre-approved exceptions, and a falling share that escalate, is a measure of a design maturing. The designer reads the escalations not as the system working but as a list of answers waiting to be written down and moved to the lowest tier.

And the ladder has a step below its bottom. The lowest place an exception can go is not pre-approved; it is gone, folded into the rules so it is no longer an exception at all. An exception that keeps arriving, once its answer is known, need not stay even a pre-approved guide forever. If it recurs enough, its answer belongs in the rule itself, so the case becomes normal and needs no way forward, because the rule now fits it. So the full progression runs downward in three moves: a case that escalates today is pre-approved tomorrow, written into a guide; a pre-approved case that keeps recurring is folded into the rules the day after, and ceases to be an exception. Escalation, then pre-approved, then rule. The designer drives every exception as far down that path as it will go, and the aim, held from here to the end of the volume, is a design where few cases escalate, fewer still need a guide, and most of what once were exceptions are simply the rule.

The highest possible standard is to place each exception at the lowest tier that safely fits and to drive it lower over time, writing escalated answers into guides and folding recurring guides into the rules, so that escalations fall, pre-approvals do their work, and most of what were once exceptions become the rule itself.

Key Takeaway: The designer's aim is to place each exception at the lowest tier that safely fits, and to drive it lower still, because the lower the tier the faster the Performer proceeds and the lighter the load above. This is a design aim, not mere efficiency: a process where most exceptions escalate is under-designed, its answers still in people's heads. And the ladder has a step below pre-approved, gone, folded into the rules. The full progression runs escalation, then pre-approved, then rule: drive every exception as far down it as it will go.

Place each exception at the lowest tier that fits, then drive it lower: escalation becomes a guide, a recurring guide becomes a rule.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Exceptions · Discipline 4: The Way Forward · Section: The lowest tier that fits

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

A real example

Return to the software company, the scoped-in exceptions now each needing their tier. The opted-out customer was placed at pre-approved. Its answer could be written down safely and completely: when a customer has asked not to be contacted, suppress the message and proceed. So it was written into a guide, signed off once, and from then on any Performer who met the case simply followed it. No one was asked, no one was interrupted; the Performer proceeded as easily as on a normal case, because the design had already decided. That is the lowest tier doing its work: an exception that reads, to the Performer, almost like no exception at all.

The unknown issue could not sit there. Its answer was not knowable in advance, because the trouble itself was new, and no guide can be written for a case no one yet understands. So it was placed at escalation: the Performer, unable to proceed by any written answer, carried it up the path to those who could work it, the Owner bringing in the Technical Team. And the case that touched a promise, where a customer asked for something only the Offer Owner had the authority to grant or vary, was placed higher still, at the Owner, because no Leader and no guide could sanction a change to what the company had promised; only the Owner of that could. Three cases, three tiers, each set by the authority its resolution truly needed.

But the design did not leave them there. The opted-out case, already pre-approved, was watched, and had it come often enough it would have been folded into the rules themselves, so that not messaging an opted-out customer became simply how the process worked, no guide required. The unknown issue, once solved, would not stay an escalation: its answer, found by the Technical Team, would be written into troubleshooting and templates, dropping it from escalation to pre-approved, and if that kind of trouble kept recurring, further still into the rules. Each exception was placed at the lowest tier it could safely sit at on the day, and then pushed lower as its answer became known. That is the way forward, worked well: never a stranded Performer, and never a case left one tier higher than it needs to be.

Each case was placed at the tier its authority required, then driven lower as its answer became known, escalation toward guide, guide toward rule.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Exceptions · Discipline 4: The Way Forward · A real example

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

The Way Forward

When a case the rule does not fit reaches the Performer, what happens next was decided long before, by the designer, who must already have answered the Performer's question: what do I do? The promise of this part is absolute. For every scoped-in exception, the Performer has a sanctioned way forward, a designed next step they are entitled to take, not a hope or whatever the nearest person suggests. And it is designed, not improvised: thought through when there was time, the same for every Performer, so that when the rule falls silent, the design speaks in its place.

That way forward comes at one of three tiers, rising by the authority a case needs to be resolved. Pre-approved is the lowest: the answer is designed and written in advance, in a guide the Performer follows themselves, no live approval needed, the case decided ahead of time rather than merely left to the Performer's discretion within a limit. The Leader is next: a live decision the line manager may make when no written answer fits. The Owner is highest: for deviations only the area's owner may sanction. They are a ladder, not a menu, and the designer places each exception at the tier its resolution's authority names, no lower, where the Performer would act beyond their sanction, and no higher, where a decision that could have been written down instead waits on a person who need not have been troubled.

The aim is to place each exception at the lowest tier that safely fits, and to drive it lower over time. The lower the tier, the faster the Performer proceeds and the lighter the load above. This is a design aim, not mere efficiency: a process where most exceptions escalate is under-designed, its answers still living in people's heads instead of its guides. And the ladder runs below pre-approved: a recurring exception, its answer known, belongs folded into the rules, so the case becomes normal and needs no way forward at all. The full progression runs downward, escalation today, pre-approved tomorrow, rule the day after, and the designer drives every exception as far down it as it will go.

So the discipline is this: for every scoped-in exception, give the Performer a sanctioned way forward, and place it at the lowest tier that safely fits. Write the answer into a guide wherever an answer can be safely written, so the Performer proceeds alone. Send to the Leader what needs a local decision, and to the Owner what only they may sanction. Then watch, and drive each case lower as its answer becomes known, escalations into guides, recurring guides into rules. A design that does this strands no Performer and troubles no one above more than the case demands, and over time it needs fewer ways forward at all, because more and more of what the rule once did not fit, it simply does.

For every scoped-in exception a sanctioned way forward, placed at the lowest tier that fits and driven lower over time, so no Performer is stranded and the rule, in the end, simply fits.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Exceptions · Discipline 4: The Way Forward · Chapter Outcome

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

Think Simple.