Build an Authority Map for a Delegated Inbox

1. Define the queue boundary

Describe delegated inbox handling as a bounded administrative lane before assigning it. The intake must identify mailbox identity, sender, message class, sensitivity label, response template, and named decision owner. The written boundary says which records the assistant may read, which fields may be prepared, and which actions require the communications owner. It also names the safe holding state for incomplete evidence so speed never substitutes for authority.

Checkpoint 1 for delegated inbox handling should be rehearsed with an ordinary record and a deliberately adverse record involving missing evidence, conflicting versions, an unavailable owner, or a rejected destination. Preserve mailbox identity, sender, message class, sensitivity label, response template, and named decision owner, the exact instruction version, the actor, the local and UTC timestamps, the permitted action, and the reason the item moved or stopped. A second reviewer should be able to reach the same queue state without private chat history. If that reviewer cannot, return the record for clarification rather than filling the gap from habit. The communications owner then accepts the correction, residual limitation, and next review date before this checkpoint becomes a reusable operating rule.

2. Create stable identity fields

Give every delegated inbox handling item a stable reference that survives exports, email forwarding, and ownership changes. Match the reference to the authoritative record before copying any status. Similar names, dates, or amounts are comparison clues, not proof. Record conflicts explicitly and preserve both sources for the communications owner.

Checkpoint 2 for delegated inbox handling should be rehearsed with an ordinary record and a deliberately adverse record involving missing evidence, conflicting versions, an unavailable owner, or a rejected destination. Preserve mailbox identity, sender, message class, sensitivity label, response template, and named decision owner, the exact instruction version, the actor, the local and UTC timestamps, the permitted action, and the reason the item moved or stopped. A second reviewer should be able to reach the same queue state without private chat history. If that reviewer cannot, return the record for clarification rather than filling the gap from habit. The communications owner then accepts the correction, residual limitation, and next review date before this checkpoint becomes a reusable operating rule.

3. Separate preparation from approval

Use distinct states for received, evidence checked, prepared, awaiting decision, approved, executed, verified, and closed. In delegated inbox handling, a polished draft is not an approved action and a sent message is not proof of the intended outcome. The record must show who changed each state and the evidence that justified it.

Checkpoint 3 for delegated inbox handling should be rehearsed with an ordinary record and a deliberately adverse record involving missing evidence, conflicting versions, an unavailable owner, or a rejected destination. Preserve mailbox identity, sender, message class, sensitivity label, response template, and named decision owner, the exact instruction version, the actor, the local and UTC timestamps, the permitted action, and the reason the item moved or stopped. A second reviewer should be able to reach the same queue state without private chat history. If that reviewer cannot, return the record for clarification rather than filling the gap from habit. The communications owner then accepts the correction, residual limitation, and next review date before this checkpoint becomes a reusable operating rule.

4. Route exceptions without invention

Define reason codes that reflect this lane: missing source, identity mismatch, obsolete version, inaccessible file, conflicting instruction, unavailable owner, rejected destination, or changed scope. The assistant records the observable condition and routes it; the assistant does not infer commitments, legal interpretation, sensitive disclosure, and irreversible deletion.

Checkpoint 4 for delegated inbox handling should be rehearsed with an ordinary record and a deliberately adverse record involving missing evidence, conflicting versions, an unavailable owner, or a rejected destination. Preserve mailbox identity, sender, message class, sensitivity label, response template, and named decision owner, the exact instruction version, the actor, the local and UTC timestamps, the permitted action, and the reason the item moved or stopped. A second reviewer should be able to reach the same queue state without private chat history. If that reviewer cannot, return the record for clarification rather than filling the gap from habit. The communications owner then accepts the correction, residual limitation, and next review date before this checkpoint becomes a reusable operating rule.

5. Apply minimum necessary access

Provide only the systems, records, and fields needed to prepare delegated inbox handling. Keep sensitive source material in its approved system and put stable references, not unrestricted copies, in the tracker. Review temporary permissions after the pilot and remove access that the evidence shows was unnecessary.

Checkpoint 5 for delegated inbox handling should be rehearsed with an ordinary record and a deliberately adverse record involving missing evidence, conflicting versions, an unavailable owner, or a rejected destination. Preserve mailbox identity, sender, message class, sensitivity label, response template, and named decision owner, the exact instruction version, the actor, the local and UTC timestamps, the permitted action, and the reason the item moved or stopped. A second reviewer should be able to reach the same queue state without private chat history. If that reviewer cannot, return the record for clarification rather than filling the gap from habit. The communications owner then accepts the correction, residual limitation, and next review date before this checkpoint becomes a reusable operating rule.

6. Reconcile the population

At each cutoff, reconcile opening items, new receipts, transfers, completions, withdrawals, and the ending queue. Investigate unexplained differences before reporting throughput. For delegated inbox handling, publish age bands and exception reasons beside volume so an apparently healthy completion count cannot conceal stranded or force-closed work.

Checkpoint 6 for delegated inbox handling should be rehearsed with an ordinary record and a deliberately adverse record involving missing evidence, conflicting versions, an unavailable owner, or a rejected destination. Preserve mailbox identity, sender, message class, sensitivity label, response template, and named decision owner, the exact instruction version, the actor, the local and UTC timestamps, the permitted action, and the reason the item moved or stopped. A second reviewer should be able to reach the same queue state without private chat history. If that reviewer cannot, return the record for clarification rather than filling the gap from habit. The communications owner then accepts the correction, residual limitation, and next review date before this checkpoint becomes a reusable operating rule.

7. Verify destination acceptance

Define completion from the receiving system or accountable owner. Save a transaction ID, accepted status, signed acknowledgement, publication URL, or comparable destination evidence. If delegated inbox handling is returned or rejected, reopen the same reference with the reason rather than creating a fresh item that hides rework.

Checkpoint 7 for delegated inbox handling should be rehearsed with an ordinary record and a deliberately adverse record involving missing evidence, conflicting versions, an unavailable owner, or a rejected destination. Preserve mailbox identity, sender, message class, sensitivity label, response template, and named decision owner, the exact instruction version, the actor, the local and UTC timestamps, the permitted action, and the reason the item moved or stopped. A second reviewer should be able to reach the same queue state without private chat history. If that reviewer cannot, return the record for clarification rather than filling the gap from habit. The communications owner then accepts the correction, residual limitation, and next review date before this checkpoint becomes a reusable operating rule.

8. Review a representative sample

Review every high-risk exception and a documented random sample of routine delegated inbox handling cases. Compare the original source, prepared result, approval, execution reference, and destination evidence. Classify corrections by cause and revise the instruction only after the communications owner confirms the changed boundary.

Checkpoint 8 for delegated inbox handling should be rehearsed with an ordinary record and a deliberately adverse record involving missing evidence, conflicting versions, an unavailable owner, or a rejected destination. Preserve mailbox identity, sender, message class, sensitivity label, response template, and named decision owner, the exact instruction version, the actor, the local and UTC timestamps, the permitted action, and the reason the item moved or stopped. A second reviewer should be able to reach the same queue state without private chat history. If that reviewer cannot, return the record for clarification rather than filling the gap from habit. The communications owner then accepts the correction, residual limitation, and next review date before this checkpoint becomes a reusable operating rule.

Questions and operating boundary

Source

cisa.gov provides authoritative background and does not endorse this service.