- name
- drivers-hours-wtd-infringement-coach-uk
- description
- Creates a 1-page driver-facing tacho/WTD infringement note plus corrective actions and review date. USE WHEN you need to explain infringements and schedule follow-up.
Drivers’ Hours & WTD Infringement Coach (UK)
PURPOSE
Turn tacho/WTD infringement evidence into a friendly, professional 1-page driver note plus corrective actions and a review date, applying the company RAG escalation rule.
WHEN TO USE
- “Explain this tacho infringement to the driver and draft the message.”
- “Check this shift pattern for EU Drivers’ Hours and WTD risk.”
- “Do a weekly tacho and WTD compliance review for these drivers.” (driver-facing outputs needed)
- “Draft a coaching note for repeated breaks/rest issues.”
- “Summarise these infringements into actions and review dates.”
DO NOT USE WHEN…
- Generic questions like “What are the drivers’ hours rules?” with no driver context or artefact needed.
- Generic HR/disciplinary process requests not tied to a specific compliance case.
- Fuel-saving/defensive driving tips unrelated to compliance deliverables.
INPUTS
- REQUIRED:
- Driver identifier (name/ID) and role (e.g., HGV/PCV), and period covered (start/end dates) - Infringement list (from .ddd/CSV/PDF summary) including dates/times and type - Working time context (duty/shift length, POA if recorded, breaks) if WTD-relevant
- OPTIONAL:
- Prior RAG history (count of ambers/reds in last X weeks/months per your policy) - Any driver explanation already given - Relevant internal SOP excerpt (paste text) for local rules
- EXAMPLES:
- “Driver A, week 2026-01-05 to 2026-01-11: 2x insufficient break, 1x daily rest short by 45 mins…”
OUTPUTS
driver-infringement-note.md(max ~1 page): explanation + expectations + supportcorrective-action-plan.md: actions, owner, due dates, review date- Success criteria:
- Tone: friendly & professional (UK spelling) - No assumptions: facts are attributed to provided records - Includes a clear review date and next steps
WORKFLOW
- Validate inputs
- Confirm: driver ID, date range, infringement types, and source (PDF/CSV notes). - IF any are missing → STOP AND ASK THE USER for the missing items.
- Summarise facts only
- List infringements in plain English (what happened + when), without blame. - IF records conflict (e.g., two sources disagree) → STOP AND ASK THE USER which source is authoritative.
- Classify severity for RAG
- Apply the company rule in references/rag-escalation-rule.md. - IF RAG status depends on missing prior history → STOP AND ASK THE USER for counts/previous outcomes.
- Draft the driver-facing note (max 1 page)
- Use assets/driver-note-template.md. - Include: what the rule expects, what the record shows, why it matters, and what to do next time.
- Propose corrective actions
- Use assets/corrective-action-plan-template.md. - Actions must be specific, practical, and measurable (e.g., break planning, reminder prompts, route/shift adjustments).
- Schedule review
- Choose a review date proportional to risk: - Green/Amber: typically next weekly review window - Red: sooner review + manager check-in (and potential investigation trigger per your policy)
- Output pack
- Produce the two .md artefacts with consistent filenames. - IF the user asks to edit existing files → ASK FIRST before making edits.
OUTPUT FORMAT
# driver-infringement-note.md
Driver:
Period covered:
Source records:
## What we saw in the record (facts)
- [date/time] — [plain English infringement]
- …
## What the rules require (plain English)
- …
## What to do next time (practical steps)
- …
- …
## Support we can offer
- …
## Status and next review
RAG status:
Next review date:
Manager/Compliance follow-up:DEPENDENCIES
- None required beyond the provided extracts/summaries.
- If the user provides files (.ddd/CSV/PDF), rely on the user’s summary unless your environment includes a trusted parser.
SAFETY & EDGE CASES
- Never accuse or assume intent; stick to evidence.
- If there is any possibility of an employment action (discipline), recommend using the investigation skill pack and keep this note factual/coaching-focused.
- Don’t invent legal thresholds; only explain what’s in the provided evidence + internal policy text.
EXAMPLES
- Input: “Explain insufficient break x2 and rest shortage x1 for Driver A”
- Output: driver-infringement-note.md + corrective-action-plan.md with review date next week
- Input: “Repeated break issues; prior 3 ambers”
- Output: Note + actions; status indicates escalation path per RAG rule; recommends investigation workflow if needed