Presence logic is a structure of claims: that certain overlap creates team value, that connection moments sustain the organisation, that team agreements will hold. This review audits the claims against behaviour — overlap achieved versus committed, connection indicators against evidence chains, agreements operating versus decorative. Without it, hybrid arrangements drift on autopilot and the presence debate returns as ideology because the evidence stopped being consulted.
- Annually as standing governance; after events shifting presence economics
- When overlap or connection indicators breach thresholds
- When the presence debate re-ignites politically — the review returns it to evidence
- Leadership team as governance owner of the presence logic
- HR as policy owner; team leads for agreement-level review
- Strategist consolidating the evidence position
- Works council where consultation-relevant
- Presence principles with evidence chains from Hybrid Balance
- Team agreements and overlap commitments
- Observed presence and overlap from continuous streams
- Connection and cohesion indicators from the pulse and network analysis where available
- Capacity and break-day records against Sharing Ratio service levels
- Audit overlap against commitment per team agreement — the distinction between attendance compliance and overlap delivery.
- Test the value claims: each principle carried an evidence chain; check claimed effects against their indicators, at the honesty level the evidence supports.
- Classify divergences by cause: agreement failure, rhythm failure, value failure (the claimed benefit isn't materialising), or drift.
- Review fairness in operation: location-bound roles and commute-asymmetric populations, with operating evidence.
- Route by cause: agreement failures to team-level renewal, rhythm failures to redistribution, value failures to leadership as principle-level questions, drift to explicit decision — revise or recommit, never tolerate silently.
- Record as governance: assumptions updated, principles reaffirmed or revised on the record.
- Attendance without overlap re-emerging through drift
- Agreements achieving overlap that produces no measured value — the uncomfortable finding the review must report
- Leadership exemption eroding the logic from above
- Connection claims defended by assertion when indicators are flat — the moment ideology re-enters
- Fairness fault lines widening quietly
- Overlap-versus-commitment audit per agreement
- Value-claim test results per principle
- Cause-classified divergence register with routed responses
- Fairness-in-operation assessment
- Governance record: principles reaffirmed, revised or retired; assumptions updated
Agreement renewals route through team cycles; rhythm findings feed redistribution with the Sharing Ratio models; principle revisions update Hybrid Balance and its assumptions. Structural breaches enter Assumption Recalibration and, at scale, contribute to triggering the Refresh.
The evidence shows divergence; governance decides its meaning. Whether an underperforming principle is wrong or under-delivered, and whether to revise the presence logic or recommit to it, are leadership decisions the review structures and cannot make. Deliberately not platform-enabled at its core: a governance act performed on platform evidence.
- Reviewing attendance instead of overlap and value
- Letting the review become policy renegotiation theatre
- Tolerating drift because revision is politically expensive — silent tolerance is the logic's repeal
- Ignoring value-failure findings because presence beliefs are identity-laden
- Skipping fairness review until resentment surfaces in attrition
A financial services firm's review found its monthly all-company day attended at 84% with the knowledge-exchange indicator flat across two years. Leadership faced the value-failure directly: the day was redesigned from presence-plus-programming to structured cross-team working sessions, with the indicator rechecked at the next review. It moved.