Match permissions, owners and changes to the written rule.
Review minimum capabilities, changed task states, owner-and-status filters and assigned review threads. Each case supplies its own fictional work rule.
Four tasks each count one correct answer. Your count out of four describes these supplied cases, not a fixed collaboration ability, software certificate or employment prediction. Every worked answer and guide remains available.
Four different checks on shared work
The tasks cover which role has enough but not excessive capability, which identifiers changed status, which tasks meet both an owner and state filter, and what a commenter may do on another reviewer’s thread. All relevant roles, snapshots and project rules are supplied. No access setting is inferred from a real product’s role name alone.
Apply both filters
Imagine a board with P = Lee, open; Q = Lee, done; R = Noor, open. A request for Lee’s unfinished tasks includes P only. Q has the correct owner but the wrong state; R has the right state but the wrong owner. Writing the two conditions separately makes the intersection visible instead of relying on a quick impression of the board.
A missing capability differs from an excessive one
In the permission task, a role that cannot comment is insufficient, while one that can edit adds a capability the stated policy does not allow you to grant unnecessarily. In the review-thread task, noticing an issue does not itself transfer resolution responsibility. Use each explanation to identify whether the error concerned capability, ownership or a changed state.
Make a small fictional board
Write three invented tasks with owner and state, then define one explicit follow-up rule. Calculate the eligible set before looking at any offered choices. Separately list a fictional role’s allowed actions and an assigned reviewer. Describe one contribution that stays within both constraints. Do not change real permissions or resolve real colleagues’ threads just to practise.
Explicit rules keep the answer checkable
The fictional constraints make each answer unique, and the source proof checks that uniqueness. They do not replace a real organization’s permission policy or approval chain. This short bank cannot inspect access, infer trustworthiness or establish professional collaboration competence. Even a perfect count should be read as correctness on these supplied cases.