At a glance
Of every audit finding that landed in the Wrike Space in the last 90 days, the percentage that has reached Completed status. The headline number for “is Wrike actually serving as a delivery surface for our audit work, or are findings sitting in approval-gate purgatory?” On Wrike specifically, this card matters because the open count is structurally inflated by approval-gate dwell time, the rate is the cleanest signal that real throughput is keeping pace with intake, independent of how many gates the workflow contains.
Calculation
Calculated automatically from your Wrike (API) data. See the At a glance summary above for what the metric tracks and the worked example below for a typical reading.Worked example
A US enterprise B2B brand on Adobe Commerce, ~120 person team. Marketing ops + ecommerce engineering on Wrike with the audit-feed dispatcher live for 7 months. Snapshot taken on 02 May 26. Trailing 90 days: 03 Feb 26 → 02 May 26 (89 days).
The team is closing the no-gate path in 9 days median, which is fast and healthy. The single-gate path takes 9 extra days (the approval dwell time itself); the double-gate path takes 15 extra days. Approval gating is costing this workspace 9 to 15 days of cycle time per finding. That is the quantified case for asking whether some categories of audit finding can skip the gate.
Compare to a peer brand on Jira. A similar-size B2B enterprise on Jira sits at 79% in the same window. Same intake volume, same engineering capacity, but Jira’s lighter approval workflow means fewer items dwell. The 8-point gap is the cost of the formal-gate discipline that Wrike enables; whether that cost is worth it depends on whether the gates catch real issues (legal, brand, compliance) or are vestigial.
Compare to 60 days ago. Same brand, snapshot on 02 Mar 26: rate was 64%. The 7-point lift traces to a March process change, the team made the Pending stakeholder gate optional for
severity:medium and severity:low findings (only critical and high require stakeholder review). The intake stayed the same; the closure rhythm sped up. This is the most common Wrike-specific lever: tier the approval gates by severity rather than applying them to every task.
The dangerous reading: rate at 38% with 30+ open findings, more than half stuck in Pending states. That is the “approval logjam” pattern, the team has done the work, the organisation cannot absorb decisions fast enough, and intake is outpacing throughput because the gate itself is the bottleneck. Vortex IQ pages owner + operations and recommends an org-level intervention: delegate approval authority, batch approvals weekly, or remove the gate for non-revenue-impacting severities.
Sibling cards merchants should reference together
Reconciling against the vendor’s own dashboard
Where to look in Wrike’s own dashboard:Wrike workspace → open the configured Space → Reports → New Report → tasks → filter byFor Business+ plans, save the report and pin it to the Space’s overview tab; the chart updates daily and reconciles within polling lag. Why our number may legitimately differ from a manual count in Wrike:Source field equals vortexiqANDCreated date is in the last 90 days→ group byStatus group. The percentage of Completed tasks against the total (excluding Cancelled) matches this card.
Cross-connector reconciliation:
Known limitations / merchant FAQs
Why is my Wrike rate lower than my peer brand’s Jira rate when both run the same audit feed? Wrike’s enterprise approval workflows include Pending stakeholder, Pending approval, and other custom gates that Jira does not enforce by default. Findings that close in 5-7 days on Jira often take 14-22 days on Wrike because of the gate dwell. The gap is the price of Wrike’s discipline; whether that price is worth paying depends on whether the gates catch real issues (legal, brand, compliance) or are vestigial. My team uses Wrike’s approval workflow on every audit task. The rate is stuck around 65%. Should I worry? Probably not, but consider tiering the gates. If the gates exist for legitimate reasons (legal review on high-severity, brand approval on low-severity), 65% is the right rate for your workflow. If the gates exist because “we always do it this way”, remove them for at least one severity tier and watch the rate climb. The Storefront Operations exemplar in the worked example moved from 64% to 71% by simply making the stakeholder gate optional for medium / low severity. Why is my rate stuck at exactly 100%? Three possibilities: (1) very few findings in the window (e.g. 5 created, 5 completed); the rate looks great but the absolute volume is too thin to be meaningful, look at intake separately. (2) Auto-dispatch is misconfigured and findings are not reaching Wrike; the denominator is artificially small. (3) The team is closing tasks immediately after creation as a workflow shortcut; check the average time-to-fix sibling, if it is below 1 day on every finding, the closures are not real fixes. Why is my rate exactly 0%? Either no closures in 90 days (the team has not engaged with Wrike for VortexIQ work) or the team uses a custom status they think is “Done” but Wrike treats asCustom group instead of Completed. Check the Space’s workflow definition: only the Completed system group counts as a resolution.
Does cancelling a task hurt my rate?
No, neither helps nor hurts. Cancelled tasks are excluded from both terms, so the rate stays unaffected. This is intentional: a team that bulk-cancels false positives should not see the rate move just because they tidied up. The trade-off is that excessive cancellation can make a small denominator look smaller; if you are cancelling more than 25% of created findings, the audit rules need tuning, not the workflow.
Does a re-opened task hurt my rate?
No. Re-opening (Completed → Active) does not subtract from the numerator; only forward closures count. Re-opening adds to the open count (which surfaces on the Findings Open card) but does not penalise this card. The reasoning, regressions are a separate phenomenon from closure discipline, and double-counting punishes the team unfairly when they correctly catch a regression.
The rate dropped from 71% to 58% over a month with no obvious cause. What happened?
Three usual causes. (1) An approval-gate that previously processed weekly batches stopped (an approver left, holiday cover lapsed, the meeting was cancelled). Check who owns Pending stakeholder and Pending approval and audit recent activity in those states. (2) A new audit rule went live that produces high intake of findings the team has not yet decided how to action; intake outpaces the workflow’s absorption capacity for 30-60 days while the team builds the right routing. (3) Window-edge effects, a closure on day 91 left the window. Look at week-over-week trend, not day-over-day.
Should I optimise this number directly?
No. Resolution rate is a downstream indicator, not a target. Optimising it directly leads to bad behaviour, closing tasks without real fixes, or refusing intake to keep the ratio healthy. Optimise throughput (more closures), abandonment (fewer ignored tasks), and gate dwell time (faster approvals). The rate follows.
Why 90 days, not quarterly?
A rolling 90-day window updates daily; a quarterly window resets every 90 days and creates artificial cliffs. Rolling is fairer for spotting trends and avoids end-of-quarter scramble gaming. Practically, 90 days is roughly equivalent to a quarter for benchmarking purposes.
My team uses Wrike for both marketing ops AND engineering. Should the rate be the same on each?
Usually no. Engineering-tagged findings close faster (median 7-12 days on a healthy workspace) than marketing-ops findings (median 14-25 days, more stakeholder review). The composite rate captures the blend; if you want per-area resolution, run Wrike’s Reports feature filtered by Custom field "OwnerGroup" to break it down. The composite is the right one for the dashboard; the breakdown is the right one for diagnosis.
The rate looks healthy but the team complains audit-fixes never ship. What is going on?
Most likely cause on Wrike: the rate counts closures, not the time they took. Rate at 75% with median time-to-fix at 24 days is technically healthy but feels slow on a daily basis. Pair the rate with the Avg Time-to-Fix sibling. If the team’s perception is “fixes are too slow”, the lever is gate dwell time, not the rate itself.