Product Requirements Document: Grievance Submission and Processing System
- Overview 1.1 Purpose Enable users to submit formal grievances to a rules authority and track them through investigation and resolution. 1.2 Background Current grievance processes rely on email/phone submissions with no systematic tracking or standardized workflows, leading to inconsistent handling and poor visibility. 1.3 Goals
Standardize grievance intake and processing Provide transparency into status and timeline Ensure consistent investigation procedures Maintain audit trail for compliance
- Scope 2.1 In Scope
Grievance submission portal Case tracking and status updates Investigation workflow management Decision notification system Reporting and analytics
2.2 Out of Scope
Payment processing for fines Legal document generation Appeal management (future phase)
- Stakeholders RoleResponsibilityContactProduct OwnerRequirements, prioritization[Name]Rules CommitteePolicy guidance, final decisions[Name]Development TeamImplementation[Team]End UsersGrievance submissionN/A
- User Personas Persona 1: Complainant
Needs: Easy submission, status visibility, fair process Pain Points: Uncertainty about process, lack of updates
Persona 2: Rules Administrator
Needs: Efficient case management, clear workflows Pain Points: Manual tracking, inconsistent documentation
- Functional Requirements 5.1 Submission
FR-1: Users must be able to submit grievances via web form FR-2: System must capture required fields (parties, incident details, evidence) FR-3: System must generate unique case ID upon submission FR-4: System must send confirmation email with case ID
5.2 Processing
FR-5: Administrators must be able to assign cases to investigators FR-6: System must track status transitions (Submitted → Under Review → Investigation → Decision) FR-7: Investigators must be able to upload findings and recommendations FR-8: System must notify parties of status changes
5.3 Resolution
FR-9: Administrators must be able to record final decisions FR-10: System must notify all parties of decisions FR-11: System must maintain complete audit log
- Non-Functional Requirements 6.1 Performance
NFR-1: Form submission response time < 2 seconds NFR-2: Email notifications sent within 5 minutes
6.2 Security
NFR-3: All data encrypted at rest and in transit NFR-4: Role-based access control (RBAC) enforced NFR-5: PII redacted from public-facing status pages
6.3 Availability
NFR-6: 99.5% uptime during business hours NFR-7: Mobile-responsive interface
- Use Cases Use Case 1: Submit Grievance for Code of Conduct Violation Actor: League member (complainant) Preconditions: User has valid account credentials Main Flow:
User navigates to grievance submission page User selects "Code of Conduct Violation" as grievance type User enters respondent information (name, ID) User describes incident with date/time/location User uploads supporting evidence (optional) System validates all required fields User reviews and submits System generates case ID (e.g., GRV-2026-0001) System sends confirmation email to user and notification to administrator
Postconditions: Grievance recorded with status "Submitted" Acceptance Criteria:
AC-1.1: Form validates required fields before submission (complainant name/contact, respondent name, incident date, description ≥50 characters) AC-1.2: System accepts file uploads (PDF, JPG, PNG) up to 10MB total AC-1.3: Confirmation email contains case ID, submission timestamp, and expected response timeline AC-1.4: Administrator receives notification within 5 minutes with case summary AC-1.5: Case appears in administrator dashboard with "Submitted" status
Use Case 2: Investigate and Recommend Decision Actor: Rules investigator Preconditions: Case assigned to investigator with status "Under Review" Main Flow:
Investigator reviews case details and evidence Investigator contacts parties for statements Investigator uploads interview notes to case file Investigator reviews applicable rules/policies Investigator documents findings in structured form Investigator provides recommendation (uphold/dismiss/sanction level) System updates status to "Pending Decision" System notifies rules committee of completed investigation
Postconditions: Case ready for final decision with complete investigation record Acceptance Criteria:
AC-2.1: Investigator can add timestamped notes visible only to administrators AC-2.2: System enforces investigation completion within 14 days of assignment (configurable) AC-2.3: Recommendation form requires findings summary, rule citations, and rationale (≥100 characters) AC-2.4: All parties receive automated status update when investigation completes AC-2.5: Case timeline shows all status transitions with timestamps and actor IDs
Use Case 3: Issue Final Decision and Close Case Actor: Rules administrator Preconditions: Investigation complete with recommendation submitted Main Flow:
Administrator reviews investigation findings Administrator consults with rules committee (if needed) Administrator enters final decision in system Administrator specifies outcome (violation found: yes/no) If violation found, administrator enters sanction details Administrator adds decision rationale System updates status to "Closed" System sends decision notification to all parties System archives case with complete record
Postconditions: Case closed with final decision recorded and parties notified Acceptance Criteria:
AC-3.1: Decision form requires outcome selection, rationale (≥100 characters), and sanction details if applicable AC-3.2: Decision notifications sent to complainant and respondent within 5 minutes with full decision text AC-3.3: Closed cases remain searchable but locked from further edits (read-only) AC-3.4: System generates PDF decision letter with case ID, parties, findings, and sanction AC-3.5: Analytics dashboard updates with case resolution metrics (time-to-close, outcome distribution)
- Technical Requirements 8.1 System Architecture
Web application: React frontend, Python FastAPI backend Database: PostgreSQL for relational data File storage: S3-compatible object storage Email: SMTP integration
8.2 Integrations
Authentication: SSO with existing member database Notifications: Email service provider API
- Success Metrics MetricTargetMeasurementSubmission completion rate>90%Form analyticsAverage time-to-decision<21 daysCase lifecycle trackingUser satisfaction>4.0/5.0Post-closure surveySystem uptime>99.5%Monitoring tools
- Timeline & Milestones PhaseDeliverableTarget DatePhase 1Design & prototypesQ1 2026Phase 2Core submission/trackingQ2 2026Phase 3Investigation workflowsQ2 2026Phase 4Reporting & analyticsQ3 2026Phase 5UAT & launchQ3 2026
- Risks & Mitigations RiskImpactMitigationLow user adoptionHighTraining program, phased rolloutData privacy concernsHighLegal review, encryption, access controlsIntegration complexityMediumEarly technical validation, fallback plans
- Open Questions
Q1: Should anonymous grievances be permitted? Q2: What retention period for closed cases? Q3: Who has authority to reopen closed cases?
- Appendices 13.1 Glossary
Grievance: Formal complaint alleging rule violation Respondent: Party accused in grievance Sanction: Penalty imposed for violation
13.2 References
Current grievance policy document v2.3 Member code of conduct Data retention policy
Document Version: 1.0 Last Updated: January 9, 2026 Author: [Name] Approvals: [Stakeholder signatures]