Build it from the customer’s actual account. “Before” should describe the old process fairly; “after” should show the agreed change without implying that every problem disappeared.
Choose one process
Fictional example: a service team changed how it assigns incoming customer enquiries.
Before: shared inbox → whoever reads first → informal forwarding → unclear owner for mixed requests.
After: shared inbox → named triage owner → request category → assigned owner, with an escalation route for mixed requests.
This comparison explains responsibility. It does not establish faster replies, fewer errors or additional revenue.
Draw the important exception
A diagram that only shows the ideal path may mislead the reader about real work. Include the exception that made the change useful.
For the fictional example:
If a request includes both an account change and a service failure, operations handles the urgent failure and the account manager owns the commercial follow-up.
The graphic can use two labelled branches. Avoid twenty boxes that obscure the main story.
Add a caption that stands on its own
A suitable caption is:
Illustrative reconstruction of the routing process described in the customer interview. The diagram shows responsibility and escalation, rather than measured performance.
For a real story, replace “illustrative reconstruction” with the accurate provenance. Do not call a reconstructed diagram a screenshot of the customer’s system.
Use clear labels such as “Triage owner” and “Account manager” instead of unexplained internal acronyms. W3C’s page-structure guidance supports meaningful structure; provide an equivalent text explanation so the process is not available only as an image.
Ask the customer focused review questions
Send the diagram with specific checks:
- Was this the process before the change?
- Is the new owner and escalation route correct?
- Which important exception is missing?
- Can these role labels and process details be published?
Do not ask only whether the picture “looks good.” The customer may approve the design while missing a factual error.
Keep the visual proportionate to the evidence
Avoid decorative rising charts, invented timers and green success percentages around the flow. They can turn a modest process description into a performance claim.
If a genuine metric is later established, assess its period, scope and explanation separately before adding it. The evidence register can hold that supporting material.
The finished diagram should help a prospective buyer understand how a comparable team organised the work. That is useful evidence of a decision even when the story does not contain a numerical result.