The org tree
Reporting relationships, Team membership, configured limits, and the proposed Org chart experience.
Reporting, membership, and limits
The organization view must distinguish reporting relationships, Team membership, and configured limits:
| Relationship | Meaning | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting relationships | The recorded manager relationship, with its source and resolution state | Does not create a budget or an authorization edge |
| Team membership | The canonical roster used for Team context | A person can belong to multiple Teams; membership is not a money allocation |
| Configured limits | Budget records with their own scope, conditions, and exclusions | A limit applies according to its configuration, not its visual position in a chart |
Show an unresolved or conflicting reporting relationship as unresolved. Do not replace it with a Team grouping. Reporting position does not grant budget-edit permission. Current reporting and access semantics are described in Team activity and Roles and visibility.
Current organization setup
The organization setup guide describes people import and identity-provider onboarding. Confirm the actual source, update process, and available manager data for the deployment. Automatic directory synchronization, one owner per chart node, and automated work represented as roster members are not established by this guide.
Proposed Org chart view
The enterprise walkthrough requires both List and Org chart views of the same selected scope and reporting window. The chart must support search, branch expansion, zoom, Fit, selection, and a reachable detail panel. Preserve the selected Team and member when switching views. Show collapsed branch counts and partial-roster counts explicitly.
For a large organization, use search and progressive disclosure. The narrow layout starts with a readable List and retains an equivalent route to every featured subject through Org chart. This is a proposed UI contract, not a claim that these interactions are deployed.
Proposed budget ownership
A budget manager would receive explicit authority over a named scope. Ownership, parent allocation, and automated-work identity require dedicated contracts. A manager relationship alone does not establish any of them. Define automated-work ownership and its Gateway credential separately from a person's capture identity.
Target contract
The following describes planned enterprise behavior. Current behavior remains defined above.
Proposed levels and ownership
An enterprise allocation tree would have explicit scope owners and parent allocations. Finance could own the company allocation; a reporting title alone would not grant access. Team membership could overlap without becoming a funding or permission relationship.
Person and service limits would need explicit ownership, attribution and self-approval rules. Directory synchronization would require the separate provisioning contract.