Written by DROPS.ST.
Before a cannabis shop drops a recurring report or update, identify who uses its output and what decision it supports. Confirm any necessary obligations, dependencies and retained records. A task being repetitive does not prove it is redundant; a task being familiar does not prove it is still useful.
DROPS connects product, stock, Customer Account and order-item context in one shop system, shared with connected Telegram shopping. That gives the review a concrete question: does the routine supply a needed decision or recreate information the team can obtain appropriately from the common record?
This is a work-review aid. Review related automation, service commitments and required reports separately.
Describe the output rather than the task label
“Prepare the weekly sheet” says little about why the work exists. State which information it contains, who receives it and what action follows.
Record the source and timing. A current product view and a retained period report may serve different purposes; one should not be treated as a replacement for the other without evidence.
Keep unknown users and requirements open. Lack of a remembered recipient is not proof that nobody needs the record.
Use a routine-purpose review
This original sheet reviews a defined piece of work, not every system in the shop.
| Review entry | What to establish | Decision question |
|---|---|---|
| Output and frequency | Actual deliverable and timing basis | What does the routine produce? |
| Decision user | Named recipient and action it supports | Who relies on the output? |
| Required scope | Actual business/qualified obligation or agreement | What must remain covered? |
| Source and dependency | Record and other work involved | What changes if the routine stops? |
| Observed use | Actual evidence, including missing evidence | Is usefulness assumed or demonstrated? |
| Proposed treatment | Retain, revise, replace, hold or retire | Is the alternative supported? |
| Acceptance and owner | Evidence, approver and review point | Who checks the decision’s effect? |
Keep the old purpose and the proposed treatment distinguishable. “Nobody opened last week’s file” is not a complete retirement decision.
Test whether the output is still needed
Ask the actual recipient which decision it informs and what they would use instead. Review the answer against the agreed task, not only a preference for less paperwork.
HM Treasury’s Magenta Book distinguishes questions about process implementation from impact and outcome claims. Use that evaluation principle to examine the routine’s actual role; its government requirements are not shop rules. Magenta Book guidance.
Record a material gap rather than calling a routine obsolete because its purpose is unclear.
Hypothetical example: two sheets contain the same current values
A fictional team maintains two lists of current product facts. One list is only a duplicate, while the other also preserves a period-specific decision reference.
The owner verifies the uses and proposes retiring the unnecessary duplicate through the approved process. They keep the separate historical requirement visible rather than assuming the live catalogue replaces it.
This example demonstrates a purpose decision, not automatic report retirement, frozen history or a measured saving.
Keep necessary controls and records separate
Determine which actual legal, accounting, privacy, provider or contractual requirements apply with the responsible reviewer. Do not retire required verification or reconciliation because another output looks similar.
Stopping a routine does not authorize deleting its existing records. Agree their actual treatment separately.
Retiring a routine is different from ending a service contract or changing data access. Review the actual supported process and commitments separately.
The software dependency map handles removal of tools. This guide evaluates the recurring work itself.
Accept the replacement before depending on it
If the proposal uses a supported shop view instead of a manual copy, demonstrate that it supplies the needed fields and timing. Check actual permission scope and what happens when the usual worker is absent.
Customer-linked order context does not prove a complete period report, automatic export or immutable earlier snapshot. Keep unavailable evidence untested.
Name who communicates the decision and checks it after the relevant cycle. A task crossed off a list can still leave another person without the information they need.
Choose DROPS when common catalogue and order records should make routine work easier to explain. Explore DROPS.ST and the shop demos with one fictional report. Identify its user, source and required outcome before deciding whether to retain, revise or retire it.