FLOW vs Process Street: checklists vs the master process

What checklist tools are genuinely good at

Recurring, linear procedures with clear steps: employee onboarding paperwork, content publishing, a weekly close. Assign the run, tick the boxes, see who is stuck. For a team of ten running a handful of stable procedures, a checklist tool is honest software at an honest price, and FLOW would be more than you need.

Where checklists run out

Three places. First, shape: a real operation is a graph, not a line. Work branches on dangerous goods, on temperature, on a missed connection, and a linear checklist either ignores the branches or explodes into a dozen near-duplicate templates that drift apart. Second, altitude: checklists describe tasks, but nobody can see the whole: how acceptance feeds build-up, where the handoffs cross team lines, which process depends on which. Third, defensibility: ticked boxes show a run happened. They do not show the procedure itself was reviewed, approved, and current, which is what an auditor actually asks.

The structural difference

FLOW holds one master process per operation. Scenarios resolve the route, so dangerous goods is the same process as standard, lit differently, not a fourth template. Owners, sign-off, versions, and review dates live on the process itself, so governance is the spine rather than a label. And the whole portfolio is visible: what is live, in draft, or overdue, across every team. The product page walks through it; the maturity curve explains why checklist tools sit a stage earlier.

On execution

FLOW's Execute tier runs live work through the master process too: real shipments and cases, connector events in, partner steps, agents assigned over MCP. So the path is not "checklists forever or FLOW": it is truth first, then execution on top of truth. Pricing is published, pilot included.