Logistics and Blocking
What you are describing is logistics and blocking:
Colonel Mustard is in the Observatory with the Revolver.
Adding the who-where-when details to a scene is no different than plotting the current location of a MacGuffin, or pacing the reveal of a plot twist. This information belongs on the main timeline with the other narrative elements and story beats.
What hasn't been mentioned is that characters are living and dynamic. They have chemistry between other characters, and have internal motives and sympathies that change due to the events in the story. Each individual has an emotional state that is constantly in flux, and a receptivity to the events and people that are around them. This evolution is their character arc and they must shift from an opening status quo, through an interpersonal conflict with other characters, and finally resolve the conflict by ending on a new version of the status quo. Without this development arc they are not characters just plot devices.
Character Arcs, Temperament, and Motivation
Colonel Mustard is frustrated by his wife's irritability, and
prefers the quiet company of his loyal horse.
This character detail has nothing to do with plot or logistics, but he will be a completely different man when he is around his wife compared to when he is around his horse. In order to show, not tell these facets of his character, he (logistically) needs a scene with his wife and a scene with his horse. Both scenes need to present him with a conflict (however minor) where he reacts differently. This contrast will make him appear to be inconsistent. Is he a simple man with a "frustrating" wife? Or is he an emotionally stunted man who thinks his wife ought to be more like an obedient animal: under his control? Both might be true, but as the reader resolves this apparent dichotomy she fills in the gaps of his personality. It's not really about contrasting a bad wife and a good horse, it's about his temperament and his fundamental viewpoints on the world.
The character is presented with 2 contradicting traits – his receptivity changes depending on who is in the room. This type of dynamic detail will probably not be spelled out for the reader, but it profoundly effects him in every scene. He is 1 person filtered by 2 different relationships, both need to feel realistic for this to register as a character flaw or handicap (in writing, a flaw can be "fixed" if the character chooses, a handicap cannot be "fixed" and requires a workaround). There is no inherent conflict to who-where-when, that's just moving chess pieces around the board. But there is inevitable conflict with volatile interpersonal relationships. The "chemical reactions" between characters will drive the motives and personal development arcs even more than the plot.
For example: a young man joining the military to defend his country has no internal conflict, he is doing the expected thing for external reasons. But if he joins the military to be more like his older brother and to impress a sweetheart, he has a start-state with internal motives and preconceptions. He is much more interesting because there are so many ways these interpersonal relationships can fail him that will impact his character arc and receptivity. How he reacts is more important than stuff that happens.
Character arcs are dynamic
You need a way to track every interpersonal relationship, the motives and conflicts between all the dynamic characters, over the course of the story. It is less important to plot relationships between non-dynamic characters who don't change, but it's still helpful to sketch in their general impression towards all the other characters even if it is superficial. What do these characters want/need, and how do they require the other characters to get it?
For me, this starts with plotting my main character arcs individually, everything they should experience in the logical narrative order to tell their story. Before this process, I typically have a loose plot outline consisting of Mary Sue characters and their flattering "power moments". I also have an idea of the obvious personality clashes (A___ is quick to act, B___ is over-cautious), but this is general and not yet dynamic.
I use a pseudo-Snowflake method to define the start and end states of the most important characters, then I fill in with various beats and conflicts needed to define their arcs. It's like Snowflake because it starts with broad generalities, but as I add specific story beats it starts to feel more like a subplot. There will be a call to action, try/fail cycles, a mid-story crisis, and a resolution that isn't really what the character wanted or expected. This is strictly character building, I do it individually for each character, and at this early stage the arcs don't align with my main story plot or each other. The arcs need to be outlined independently for each main character. I'll repeat what I said at the start, each character needs their own arc (beginning, middle, and end) or they are not characters just plot devices or supporting roles.
Once I have their character arcs I have a better idea of who each is as an individual. At this point, the Mary Sue moments look out of place so I will rework my main plot outline until the motives and actions make sense. I also have a better idea of the situations I need to support each arc, so secondary characters are emerging and being consolidated, as well as worldbuilding and backstory to frame them. I don't merge the main character arcs, instead I try to cross-pollenate them: a story beat in one triggers a story beat in another. Getting the arcs to influence each other isn't difficult, everyone is effected by the main narrative, meanwhile the interpersonal moments are where characters show individual motivation and arc development. One character's momentary outburst leads to another character's self doubt. Main characters de-rail each other leading to distrust and consequences. Likewise characters make sacrifices or misrepresent themselves creating unsustainable house of cards. The more going on in each character's personal conflicts, the easier it is ripple the effects to the other character arcs and have it all feel organic, not contrived.
Characters are like tent poles that lean away from each other
The final phase, which is the actual story-writing, is to approach each scene with a clear idea of where each character is on their arc, and what is currently motivating them. Their dialog and actions will come overwhelmingly from their personal arcs. Even characters who are working together for mutual benefit will not entirely agree. They will have different approaches, and set different objectives. Even in friendly situations they will be advocating and negotiating in support of their own individual goals.
In nearly all scenes at least one character is proactively trying to influence the other characters by logic, charisma, dominance, or subterfuge, and this is where the other characters' receptivity comes in. They will agree or resist based on their own receptivity and motives – every scene with character interaction involves this negotiation of goals and personalities. These character differences are like tent poles that lean away from each other to create space between them. Characters never just state an objective fact, everything gets filtered through their subjective realities, everything. When each character is advocating for their own motives, there should never be a situation where the reader is confused about who is speaking. It should be obvious by what they say. The objective "truth" of the story lies somewhere in the space between the characters's differences.
Putting it all together
For each scene, I refer back to my Snowflake character arcs and make sure each character signals their progress. If the beat signals a lack of progress or stagnation, the arc is still progressing even if the character isn't. Sometimes the point of an interaction is so the arc beat is observed by another character (with or without comment) just so the reader feels the change.
In a longer work I'll have a half-dozen main characters with fully developed beat-for-beat arcs, and at least as many supporting characters who have backstory and an evolving arc but don't take up as much space in the actual narrative. They still act according to their own dynamic motives, which must progress in every scene they are in.
The lowest tier of characters are essentially plot devices to aid or impede the protagonists, or who act as a Greek chorus to provide context and worldbuilding. They also receive a status quo or starting state, but they don't have much room to evolve. Nevertheless, they will still negotiate for their own goals, but are completely unaware of the plot. Rather than create forgettable throwaways, this frees them to be more selfish, more transparently themselves, because they don't need to negotiate in good faith or compromise with the main characters. They are free to over-react, to insult and provoke, and essentially to lean in opposition to the main character(s) to represent all the things the MCs can't be. They still act as a tent pole to define space between for a larger story.