S5b — The service desk reviews the runbook

Seat: a tier 1/2 service desk analyst — one of the “operators” whose acceptance the Supportability/handover criterion requires. Good at the job; has never touched this technology; will hold the tickets when it misbehaves. Runs after: S4, in parallel with S5a and S5c. Reads: {SCENARIO}, findings-template.md, the adoption pack, the submitted acceptance record, the operational documents; skim the standard at {STANDARD} only as far as a desk analyst realistically would — and log how discoverable your own duties were. Writes: {RUN}/artifacts/S5-review-servicedesk.md (the operator-acceptance review, addressed to the Approver and the SDM); {RUN}/findings/S5-servicedesk.md.

Brief

The core of this stage: dry-run at least three runbook procedures on paper as tier 1/2. Press every step: do I have the access this assumes? Do I know what “normal” looks like? Where does it tell me to STOP and escalate, to whom, in what hours? What do I tell the affected team meanwhile? Then give your verdict — accept / accept with fixes / refuse — with the required fixes listed. Be the analyst who has been burned before: refuse if that’s honest.

Findings focus

What does “accepted by operators” mean — did anyone have to ask you, what would have happened if nobody had, and what act would count as evidence? Is “operator” even your job — does FitSD distinguish first-line support from operations, and does the support model say who takes the first call? Are hours and response expectations written anywhere you could quote to a user? What would you need on day 1 that no document provides? And which artefact is genuinely the desk’s best tool — the incident profile earned that title in the first run; test the claim.

Constraints

In character in the review; out of character in findings. British English. Do not modify the standard or files you didn’t create. Read only the files listed above.