Welfare professional decision-making has been at the centre of two debates over the past decade in Sweden. On the one hand, the balance between NPM and trust/discretion has been debated in relation to the so called “trust reform”. On the other, both hopes and fears have been discussed regarding the possibility to replace professionals with automated AI-based decision-making. This paper presents one of several case studies from a project studying the actual balance in practical welfare professional work between discretion and “programming” of decisions in terms of rules and instructions, process maps and software programs. The case in focus is the execution/foreclosure (verkställighet/utmätning) process at the Swedish Enforcement Authority (Kronofogden). The study is based on interviews with staff working on the cases, documents guiding the work, and instances of contextual inquiry – in which case officers show their work process through interfaces with digital systems. Besides describing the context for case handling, this paper will try to theorize how decisions are taken (individually vs. collectively; at one point in time vs. in processes), to what extent principles (e.g. law and rules) and programs (e.g. software and information systems) delimit different aspects of discretion, and how digitalization is performed from both above and below (i.e., the extent to which input and “appification” of digital help systems trickle down from the central organisational management vs. to what extent they are initiated and adjusted at local levels).