{{ greeting }}
{{ standfirst }}
Everything you see is built from confirmed requirements except what carries a violet marker. A ? is a decision we have deliberately not made for you. A ✓ is something we checked against comparable tools before designing it. Toggle Notes in the header to see the product without our commentary.
People
{{ peopleSub }}
Waiting on you
Proof your team uploaded. Approve it and it lands on their record.
{{ apSummary }} New uploads land here.
Follow-through across the company
Where process holds, and where it slips. 19 branches reporting.
My record
Everything VAMAC holds about your training and reviews.
Do associates log in at all? If yes, this is a real surface with its own scope. If no, every upload becomes a manager's job and the approval queue gets much busier. The market says yes — but it only works if every driver and warehouse associate has an Entra account today, which we don't yet know.
{{ lnTitle }}
{{ lnLede }}
The search is over your own material — the 173 lines of the sales curriculum with the 100 links you put on them, the 26 SharePoint documents, the training sources, the certifications. Nothing is hosted here; every result opens where it lives. Sixty-one of your links go to link.thebpr.com and nobody has told us what that is, so they say “course” rather than “video” until Julian answers. The team table's per-person numbers are sample until the database exists.
{{ cpTitle }}
{{ cpLede }}
Every number here is from your curriculum sheet. Levels, items, who signed and when, the review period, and what each level opens in Eclipse. The ring is 14 of 19 because the sheet says so. Locked levels open to look at — the sheet is not a secret — but nothing counts until it is signed at the line by the trainer. Two things we did not invent: a time estimate per item, and what a level does to pay. If either is true, tell us and it goes on the card.
The level model came from VAMAC, not from us. Scott’s team built it on 25 August, and the levels and items themselves come from your own curriculum document — see the note below. It replaces the paper and the hand-off to HR that moves someone up a level today; the ticket to IT still gets raised, from the signed level review, without a person in the middle.
Settled on 9 September: the Eclipse change is a ticket to IT, never a write (Julian Ensign), and a line is signed by the associate and their manager, both (Emily Perry). Still open: whether watching a module counts as completing it, or competency has to be demonstrated — Suzanne Pittman and Emily Perry.
These are your levels and your items, not ours. Transcribed from Branch Sales Training Curriculum 11.17.25, which Evan sent on 3 September. It replaced a seven-level ladder we had guessed at before we had the document.
Two things here are still ours. Which Eclipse authorization template each level unlocks — Julian will name them — and the progress shown — your form is a blank template with no completion data, so the sign-offs below are illustrative.
It also settles something we had been treating as an open design question. Every item on your form carries Completion Date, Trainer Initial and Associate Initial, and every level closes with an Associate’s and an Instructor’s signature. The dual sign-off is not a decision to make — it is already how the paper works.
Sign-off queue
Waiting on your signature. Oldest first — these escalate.
Nothing at Culpeper is waiting on your signature.
You can add a requirement to anyone at Culpeper. You cannot remove one. Only HR unassigns or waives, and every override is written to the associate’s record with who did it and when.
This screen assumes the sign-off is the trigger. What happens on the other side of it is still open.
Onboarding & transfers
{{ obIntro }}
These are your checklists, line for line. The Ninety Day Checklist and the Transition Checklist Emily Perry sent on 9 September. This is the screen that opens a 30-60-90 — HR kicks it off, from the hire date or the position-change date — and the line where HR assigns LMS classes. Ticks here do not persist yet.
Override queue
Managers add. Only HR subtracts. Every attempt is written down — including the ones the platform refused.
A branch under pressure will always find a reason to drop a requirement. Making add free and subtract a request means the safety floor can only ever move one way at the branch, and the record of who moved it survives the person who moved it.
Append-only. There is no edit and no delete on this table, for HR either — a correction is a new entry that references the old one.
{{ tlName }}
{{ tlWho }}{{ tlLede }}
{{ tlGoal }}
Every node on this line is derived, not typed. The levels and sign-offs come from the ladder, the reviews from the record, the position from the PRD. Julian’s frame on 9 September — “like their LinkedIn page over the years” — is the brief. The Eclipse column names the level that opens a thing, because Julian has not yet named the templates and we will not invent a number.
{{ tcTitle }}
{{ tcLede }}
Julian’s shape, 9 Sep. The question he fields from counter managers is what’s available? This is that list. The sources below are the ones he and Emily named, plus every host the sales curriculum actually links to — 100 of its 182 signable lines carry a link.
My certifications
Everything VAMAC holds proof of for you, and the date each one runs out. Anything overdue or due soon is already sitting in {{ mlMgr }}’s queue too — you are not the only one being asked.
Who’s here today
A coverage note does not change ADP, does not touch a timecard, and does not approve anything. It tells the next person who walks in where everybody is. If a note and ADP disagree, ADP is the record — and the disagreement is the thing worth looking at.
VAMAC has not chosen where coverage lives, and this screen does not choose for them. Drawn here as a manual annotation typed in the platform. The alternative is reading Microsoft 365 group calendars — but that only works where a branch keeps one. The Chinault region does. Most do not, and a feature that is empty everywhere else teaches people to stop looking at it.
Team calendar
Birthdays and work anniversaries, by branch or region. Time off is not here — it lives in ADP, where it belongs, because requesting it has to reach payroll.
ADP already shows a manager their direct or indirect reports with time-off balances read straight off the timecard, scoped by the reporting hierarchy. PTO is requested there because it has to reach payroll. Emily Perry, 23 Sep: “do we need to duplicate it? This one directly affects their time card and their pay.” So this screen keeps only the thing ADP does not hold.
This screen used to be a month of PTO and a two-thirds booking check. Emily showed us ADP doing both, better, on 23 September. ADP owns the balances, the hierarchy and the timecard, and PTO is requested there because it has to reach payroll. So that came out rather than being duplicated. What is left is the part ADP does not hold — and whether even this earns a screen, or belongs on the branch TVs alone, is still Emily and Suzanne’s call.
Daily / weekly / monthly
VAMAC\u2019s own list, from the Manager Training Template. Nothing here to tick off.
Why there are no checkboxes. Suzanne Pittman, 25 August 2026: “Here’s my daily list, but now it’s one more step to check it off.” A checklist that asks to be checked adds a job to a person who already has the job. So this one does not: no checkboxes, no completion state, no streak, no nudge. The work that genuinely needs tracking becomes a module, and a module tracks itself in the curriculum ladder.
This is transcribed, not composed. The three tables are from the Manager Training Template Emily Perry sent on 9 September — the current one of VAMAC’s two manager documents, last edited June 2026. Until then two lists were in circulation and neither was trusted, so this screen carried a list we had written ourselves. It no longer does.
One-on-ones
Who you have spoken to, when, and who has quietly gone a month without a conversation. The tally is the point — a gap is invisible until something is counting it.
This does not tell Ray Dunn that Angela is behind. It tells Angela. Marcus Bell has no conversation on record at all since he moved to the counter on 4 August, which is the kind of thing that only shows up when somebody counts.
The form is yours. Associate Meeting Notes, the version on SharePoint, sent by Emily on 17 September — four headings, verbatim, and both signatures. Her words: it is the playbook managers use for the annual review, which stays in ADP and which we do not rebuild.
That answers something we had wrong. We had built this as a private manager’s log. Your form is signed by the associate too, so it is a shared record of a conversation, not a note about someone. Two weeks is still our assumption — nobody has said what cadence is expected, and the screen counts against a number we made up.
Explore positions
What every position at VAMAC actually asks for, and how much of it you already hold. Look at anything you like — this is a browser, not an application. Nobody is told you were here and nothing is assigned to you from this screen.
Suzanne told us career transparency was the number one thing associates asked for. This is our reading of that ask — see what lead counter requires before anybody assigns anything, without raising your hand. Deliberately not an application flow; adding one changes what the screen means.
P-001 is answered — associates log in, so this screen exists. What is still ours is which positions an associate may look at, and whether looking at one should tell anybody anything.
{{ x.goal }}
30-60-90
VAMAC’s Job Performance Review, used three times — the same fourteen lines at 30, 60 and 90, rated Yes / Needs Improvement / No, three signatures. Counted in days from the hire date.
{{ ckEmptyBody }}
This is your Job Performance Review, line for line. The same fourteen lines at 30, 60 and 90; Yes / Needs Improvement / No; Comments/Actions per section; the curriculum box; three signatures in order — manager, associate, HR. N/A on two lines — DOT/OSHA and branch safety meetings — is the one change Emily asked for on 17 Sep.
Branch tree
This sample carries individual records for Emporia and Culpeper only. Separately, Marcus Bell and Dale Moon appear at Emporia here and at Culpeper in the sign-off queue. That is a real conflict in the source data, not a display bug.
Drug-test tracking
Two things here are VAMAC decisions, built exactly as stated: no result is ever stored, and visibility stops above the branch. Everything below is still open.
{{ hrHead }}
{{ hrSub }}
A roster is what you read once you already know where to look. Southside is the lowest number in the company and the fastest-improving region — and Tidewater looks comfortable at 79% while falling every month since May. Neither of those is visible from a number on its own.
{{ hrFoot }}
The headline score is the mean of the three metrics below it. That is our composition, not VAMAC’s — nobody has told us what a region’s single number should be made of, or what it should be measured against.
{{ sopTitle }}
{{ sopLede }}
These are your documents and your SharePoint links — the ones your sales curriculum already points at. The tool holds none of them. You open the document where it lives, come back and mark it read; we record the click and the mark, and the branch manager sees it. Which SOP belongs to which role is our proposal, not your answer — nobody has written that down yet, and it is the first thing to correct.
Knowledge capture
Sketch, plus one risk the blueprint doesn't mention.
The hardest part of this module is not technical. Veterans can hear "we want to capture your knowledge" as "we want it so we can replace you" — and where that suspicion exists, the documentation comes out shallow and useless. Tenexity runs the first two or three calibration interviews, which means we set the tone for every interview VAMAC runs afterward.
The pipeline is clear; the interface is not. Who approves, how SOPs are organized, and how deep search goes are decisions for VAMAC to make. One connection worth raising: offboarding could trigger a capture interview automatically — beyond the blueprint, so it stays in the parking lot until someone asks.
Under the access model we're proposing, this role has no reason to open it. If that's wrong it's a one-line change — which is exactly why we're asking now.