INTERNAL PROJECT DECISION-REQUEST NOTE
Manual escalation record for ordinary delivery/approval issues. Not an emergency procedure or automatic notification. Replace bracketed fields and remove the fictional example before use.

PROJECT AND TRIGGER
Client/project and version: [reference]
Routine owner: [person]
Trigger routine route cannot resolve: [specific event]
Decision needed: [one answer required]
Affected commitment: [work/date/time/timezone]

AUTHORITY AND BACKUP
Agreed decision role: [person/role and decision boundary]
Backup role and limits: [may decide / coordination only, as actually agreed]
Route if nobody available has authority: [agreed route; never default approval]

EVIDENCE PACKET
Current brief/agreement: [approved reference]
Exact proof/version: [reference]
Relevant comments and decision source: [references]
Owner recommendation and uncertainty: [separate from evidence]
Approved location and sharing boundary: [where/with whom]

FOLLOW-UP AND WAITING
Agreed request route: [route]
Follow-up time and timezone: [agreed time/person]
Waiting limit and affected commitment: [time/decision needed]
Work allowed while waiting: [unaffected work within agreement]
Work that stays on hold: [specific boundary]
Next route if no authorised answer: [person/decision]

OUTCOME
Actual authorised decision and source: [answer/person/reference or waiting]
Version to which it applies: [reference]
Next action/owner/date: [agreement]
Unresolved part: [question and next route]
Do not mark resolved merely because a note was sent or acknowledged.

FICTIONAL COMPLETED NOTE
Lantern Desk Studio, Belltower Theatre, people, references and times below are invented illustrations, not customers, service levels or measured outcomes.

Project and current state:
Belltower Theatre programme landing page, reference BT-PAGE, proof C. On 29 October 2026 at 10:00 Sydney time, Ellis has two incompatible headline instructions and no recorded authorised choice.
Trigger and decision:
The routine review route has not resolved which headline should apply to proof C. The affected headline revision stays waiting for one instruction through the client's agreed approval route.
Decision and backup roles:
Jo is the agreed client decision role. If Jo is unavailable, Casey can coordinate an authorised response but does not gain authority to approve the headline. Drew coordinates the studio's delivery-impact discussion.
Evidence packet:
Keep the two comment references, proof C and the current brief together in their agreed location. Ellis records the unresolved question and the recommendation separately.
Agreed follow-up:
Ellis checks for the answer at 12:00 Sydney time on 29 October, using the agreed route and Casey's coordination role if needed. This is a fictional project agreement, not an automatic alert or guaranteed response.
Waiting limit:
If no authorised choice is recorded by 14:00 Sydney time, Ellis asks Drew to coordinate the decision about the affected 15:00 proof review through the agreed approval route. Nobody silently changes that commitment or approves the headline by default.
Work while waiting:
Ellis may continue unaffected page checks within the approved brief. The disputed headline and any public release remain on hold. Casey's involvement does not remove that boundary.
Current result:
Waiting for a decision. The follow-up and waiting-limit actions are planned; the example does not record a successful response or a resolved issue.