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 + support
corrective-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
1---2name: drivers-hours-wtd-infringement-coach-uk3description: 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.4---56# Drivers’ Hours & WTD Infringement Coach (UK)78## PURPOSE9Turn 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.1011## WHEN TO USE12- “Explain this tacho infringement to the driver and draft the message.”13- “Check this shift pattern for EU Drivers’ Hours and WTD risk.”14- “Do a weekly tacho and WTD compliance review for these drivers.” (driver-facing outputs needed)15- “Draft a coaching note for repeated breaks/rest issues.”16- “Summarise these infringements into actions and review dates.”1718DO NOT USE WHEN…19- Generic questions like “What are the drivers’ hours rules?” with no driver context or artefact needed.20- Generic HR/disciplinary process requests not tied to a specific compliance case.21- Fuel-saving/defensive driving tips unrelated to compliance deliverables.2223## INPUTS24- REQUIRED:25 - Driver identifier (name/ID) and role (e.g., HGV/PCV), and period covered (start/end dates)26 - Infringement list (from .ddd/CSV/PDF summary) including dates/times and type27 - Working time context (duty/shift length, POA if recorded, breaks) if WTD-relevant28- OPTIONAL:29 - Prior RAG history (count of ambers/reds in last X weeks/months per your policy)30 - Any driver explanation already given31 - Relevant internal SOP excerpt (paste text) for local rules32- EXAMPLES:33 - “Driver A, week 2026-01-05 to 2026-01-11: 2x insufficient break, 1x daily rest short by 45 mins…”3435## OUTPUTS36- `driver-infringement-note.md` (max ~1 page): explanation + expectations + support37- `corrective-action-plan.md`: actions, owner, due dates, review date38- Success criteria:39 - Tone: friendly & professional (UK spelling)40 - No assumptions: facts are attributed to provided records41 - Includes a clear review date and next steps4243## WORKFLOW441. **Validate inputs**45 - Confirm: driver ID, date range, infringement types, and source (PDF/CSV notes).46 - IF any are missing → **STOP AND ASK THE USER** for the missing items.472. **Summarise facts only**48 - List infringements in plain English (what happened + when), without blame.49 - IF records conflict (e.g., two sources disagree) → **STOP AND ASK THE USER** which source is authoritative.503. **Classify severity for RAG**51 - Apply the company rule in `references/rag-escalation-rule.md`.52 - IF RAG status depends on missing prior history → **STOP AND ASK THE USER** for counts/previous outcomes.534. **Draft the driver-facing note (max 1 page)**54 - Use `assets/driver-note-template.md`.55 - Include: what the rule expects, what the record shows, why it matters, and what to do next time.565. **Propose corrective actions**57 - Use `assets/corrective-action-plan-template.md`.58 - Actions must be specific, practical, and measurable (e.g., break planning, reminder prompts, route/shift adjustments).596. **Schedule review**60 - Choose a review date proportional to risk:61 - Green/Amber: typically next weekly review window62 - Red: sooner review + manager check-in (and potential investigation trigger per your policy)637. **Output pack**64 - Produce the two .md artefacts with consistent filenames.65 - IF the user asks to edit existing files → **ASK FIRST** before making edits.6667## OUTPUT FORMAT68```text69# driver-infringement-note.md70Driver:71Period covered:72Source records:7374## What we saw in the record (facts)75- [date/time] — [plain English infringement]76- …7778## What the rules require (plain English)79- …8081## What to do next time (practical steps)82- …83- …8485## Support we can offer86- …8788## Status and next review89RAG status:90Next review date:91Manager/Compliance follow-up:92```9394## DEPENDENCIES95- None required beyond the provided extracts/summaries.96- If the user provides files (.ddd/CSV/PDF), rely on the user’s summary unless your environment includes a trusted parser.9798## SAFETY & EDGE CASES99- Never accuse or assume intent; stick to evidence.100- If there is any possibility of an employment action (discipline), recommend using the investigation skill pack and keep this note factual/coaching-focused.101- Don’t invent legal thresholds; only explain what’s in the provided evidence + internal policy text.102103## EXAMPLES104- Input: “Explain insufficient break x2 and rest shortage x1 for Driver A”105 - Output: `driver-infringement-note.md` + `corrective-action-plan.md` with review date next week106- Input: “Repeated break issues; prior 3 ambers”107 - Output: Note + actions; status indicates escalation path per RAG rule; recommends investigation workflow if needed