Who else
Who else was in
The building is not the point; the people in it are, and on most days they were somewhere else.
Days this part is about, hour by hour
Thursday, the third week
0 of 7Two floors from anyone known
Wednesday, the first week
2 of 7Thursday, the first week
0 of 7Nobody from the team was in
three days · 21 hours logged · two of them were only possible there · two of the three days contained no such hour at all · three were made worse by being there
Three days chosen for the gap between being in and being together.
Attendance and overlap are different numbers
Every system counts the first. Only the second buys anything. The gap between them is where a hybrid policy quietly fails.
The building is not the point
Every argument for the office is actually an argument about people, and the substitution is what makes the policy fail to deliver what it promises.
The day nobody from your team came
Nine days of the quarter with zero overlap, what they had in common, and why the obvious remedy — find somebody — does not work.
The hot desk two floors up
Being in the building is not the same as being near anyone, and on nine days of the quarter the difference was two floors and about forty metres.
The new starter and the hour nobody scheduled
The strongest case for the office in the whole record, described exactly, including the part of it that a three-day rule does not supply.
Proximity without overlap
A busy building and an empty day are not opposites. Five days of the quarter were both at once, and the combination is the one the metrics cannot see.
Being seen is not being with
Two reasons to be in the building that get bundled together and point in different directions. Separating them changes what you ask for.
How to find out who is in
The highest-value change on this record costs nine messages a week and no system at all.