MI-04
Sequential Batch Closures — Manual Sweep Pattern
Metric Integrity
Default severity: medium
MetricsQualityRisk
What it detects
Multiple aged issues are closed in sequence with inter-transition gaps within the configured sweep interval range, by the same actor.
Detection formula
FOR each_actor_day_group: sorted_transitions = sort(transitions, timestamp) gaps = \[t\[i+1\]-t\[i\] for i in range(len-1)\] IF AVG(gaps) BETWEEN config.mi.sweep_min_gap_seconds AND config.mi.sweep_max_gap_seconds // default: 60s–180s AND COUNT >= config.mi.sweep_min_count // default: 4 THEN FLAG sequential_sweepExamples in practice
- 6 items closed one per minute by same actor — Jan 27 Team A
- Bulk admin transitions or resolution anomalies distort cycle time and velocity metrics.
- Closure timestamps or fields suggest data repair rather than organic delivery.
Suggested response
Audit closure and field patterns so metrics reflect real completion, not bulk admin updates.
Coaching playbook
Symptom
Multiple aged issues are closed in sequence with inter-transition gaps within the configured sweep interval range, by the same actor.
Why it matters
When "Sequential Batch Closures — Manual Sweep Pattern" keeps appearing, the team is signalling a repeatable process gap. Left unexamined, the pattern hides where work really stalls and makes improvement metrics harder to trust.
What you can achieve
Audit closure and field patterns so metrics reflect real completion, not bulk admin updates.
Facilitation questions
- What system change would stop "Sequential Batch Closures — Manual Sweep Pattern" from firing again?
- What do the cited issues have in common — same root cause or same workaround?
- Who owns the two-week experiment and how will we verify on the next import?
Run this rule against your own tracker data with Flow Analyzer.