Embedding Authority Checks into Workflows: Practical Patterns (Q&A)

Q&A on how to embed authority validation into ERP, procurement, CLM, and treasury workflows - including common patterns and failure-safe designs.

This article pairs with Single Source of Truth for Authority — which covers the architectural foundation — and Avoiding Sync Drift for ongoing reconciliation.

Definition: An authority check in a workflow is a real-time or near-real-time validation that confirms whether a specific person or role has the authority to approve or execute a specific action — based on decision type, amount, entity, conditions, and effective dates — at the moment the action is requested.

The fastest way to improve authority outcomes is to make authority checks happen where work happens. This Q&A covers practical ways to do that without reinventing your systems.

Q: What does an "authority check" mean in a workflow?

A: It's a validation that answers: Does this person have the authority to approve or execute this action under the applicable rules right now? It typically considers amount, decision type, entity, conditions, and effective dates.

Q: Where should authority checks happen?

A: Ideally in the systems that handle procurement approvals, contract approvals and signature routing, payments and treasury approvals, and master data changes. Not everything needs to be enforced everywhere, but the highest-risk actions should have gates.

Q: What are common implementation patterns?

A: Three patterns show up most often:

PatternHow It WorksBest ForKey Trade-off
Real-time API lookupWorkflow calls authority system to validate approver in real timeHigh-risk actions requiring current authority proofDepends on system availability; adds latency
Cached export / synchronizationAuthority rules exported on schedule and imported into workflow systemHigh-volume, lower-risk approvals where near-real-time is sufficientRules may be hours or days stale between syncs
Event-driven updatesAuthority changes emit events consumed by downstream systemsOrganizations with mature integration infrastructureMore complex to implement; best long-term pattern

The "best" approach depends on system flexibility, latency tolerance, and operational risk. West Monroe's 2026 research found that 44 percent of executives cite bureaucratic processes as the main cause of slow decisions — the right integration pattern should reduce friction, not add another approval layer.

Q: How do we handle system outages or validation failures?

A: Decide in advance whether the control is: hard stop (block until validated, common for payments and signing), soft stop (allow but require escalation and additional evidence), or monitor-only (flag and report exceptions, useful in early phases). A simple "failure-safe" design blocks only for high-risk actions and allows controlled escalation for others.

Q: How do we avoid duplicating logic in every system?

A: Keep the core logic (matrix + delegations) centralized. Downstream systems should either validate against it or consume a standardized export. Duplicating logic in multiple workflow rules is how drift is born.

Our recommendation: Treat your authority system as the API that other systems call — not as a report they occasionally reference. When workflow systems validate against a live authority source rather than maintaining their own approval logic, you eliminate the most common cause of rule divergence between systems.

Q: What data do workflows need to validate authority correctly?

A: At minimum: decision type, entity, amount/threshold value, key conditions (standard vs non-standard terms, risk flags), approver identity/role, and effective date/time context. If the workflow can't pass these attributes, your validation will be partial.

Q: What's the most common mistake when embedding authority checks?

A: Only validating the approval — not the authority of the approver. Teams often capture "Manager approved" in a workflow, but cannot prove the manager's authority was valid for that amount and decision type on that date.

Q: Where does Aptly help?

A: Aptly centralizes authority rules and delegations with effective dating and audit history, so workflows can validate decisions against a single, consistent source. That improves control and reduces the "spreadsheet reconciliation" cycle that tends to follow audits and incidents.

Get started with Aptly.

Connect with our team for a discovery session to learn more about how Aptly can help within your organization.  If you are already a client and need support, contact us here.