{ "caseVersion": "2026.08.31-practice-3", "caseTitle": "Harbor Home support recovery", "disclosure": "This is a fictional, sanitized training case. All people, accounts, products, contacts, and records are fabricated; no real personal or confidential data is present, and no legal, safety, or warranty outcome is promised.", "caseBrief": "Harbor Home Systems is a fictional seller of connected thermostats. A firmware update was released to 6,200 active devices on Monday. By Wednesday, support had received 184 contacts: 91 about repeated login prompts, 47 about schedules resetting, 18 about an unfamiliar error code, and 28 unrelated questions. The public service promise says customers receive a meaningful first response within four business hours, but the queue median is 7.2 hours and 36 cases have waited longer than 12 hours. The knowledge base tells agents to reset the device, yet engineering's internal notice says repeated resets can erase diagnostic logs needed for investigation. Identity verification is inconsistent: some agents request a full date of birth for low-risk preference changes, while others make account-email changes after confirming only a device nickname. One customer says a cold home creates an urgent safety concern for an elderly parent, but the agent cannot verify conditions or diagnose health risk. A team lead drafted a blanket promise that all schedules will be restored today; engineering has only reproduced the issue on one device model and has no recovery estimate. Case notes frequently say fixed or angry customer without recording observed behavior, approved steps, result, owner, or next action. Quality reviews sample only complaints and average privacy failures into the overall score. The operations manager wants agents to close every case after sending the reset article to reduce backlog. Learners must design a truthful service response, proportionate verification, disciplined diagnosis, reliable notes, de-escalation and escalation, and a quality-coaching loop. The exercise requires urgent safety concerns to be routed through approved emergency and specialist procedures without the learner diagnosing, guaranteeing restoration, or requesting unnecessary sensitive data.", "facts": [ { "id": "F01", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Firmware was released to 6,200 active devices on Monday." }, { "id": "F02", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Support received 184 contacts across four recorded issue categories by Wednesday." }, { "id": "F03", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "The median first response is 7.2 hours against a four-business-hour target." }, { "id": "F04", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Thirty-six open cases have waited longer than twelve hours." }, { "id": "F05", "confidence": "conflicting", "record": "The public reset article conflicts with engineering's instruction to preserve diagnostic logs." }, { "id": "F06", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Some agents request full birth dates for low-risk preference changes." }, { "id": "F07", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Other agents change account email after verifying only a device nickname." }, { "id": "F08", "confidence": "provisional", "record": "One customer reports an urgent cold-home concern involving an elderly parent." }, { "id": "F09", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Engineering reproduced schedule reset on one model and has no recovery estimate." }, { "id": "F10", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "A team lead drafted an unsupported same-day restoration promise." }, { "id": "F11", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Case notes often omit observations, attempted steps, result, owner, and next action." }, { "id": "F12", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Quality sampling covers only complaints and averages privacy failures into total scores." } ], "challenges": [ { "module": 1, "title": "Reset the service promise", "prompt": "Write a response standard that acknowledges delays and distinguishes response, update, and resolution commitments.", "deliverable": "A service-promise card draft and three learner-proposed message examples pending authorized review.", "evidenceCriteria": [ "Defines meaningful first response, update cadence, ownership, and the difference between response and resolution", "Avoids unsupported recovery dates and universal promises", "Uses respectful plain language while labeling all three examples as unapproved training drafts", "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" ], "taskMode": "bounded-case-starter", "providedInputs": [ { "id": "M01-I01", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F01" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Firmware was released to 6,200 active devices on Monday." }, { "id": "M01-I02", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F03" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "The median first response is 7.2 hours against a four-business-hour target." }, { "id": "M01-I03", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F04" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Thirty-six open cases have waited longer than twelve hours." }, { "id": "M01-I04", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F09" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Engineering reproduced schedule reset on one model and has no recovery estimate." }, { "id": "M01-I05", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F10" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "A team lead drafted an unsupported same-day restoration promise." }, { "id": "M01-B01", "kind": "case-brief", "sourceFactIds": [], "sourceRecordIds": [ "CB01" ], "confidence": "mixed", "record": "Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment." }, { "id": "M01-S01", "kind": "assignment-scope", "sourceFactIds": [ "F01", "F03", "F04", "F09", "F10" ], "confidence": "instruction", "record": "Build a starter version of “A service-promise card draft and three learner-proposed message examples pending authorized review.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it." } ], "completionBoundary": "Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F01, F03, F04, F09, F10, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.", "starterSchema": { "id": "M01-W02", "title": "Reset the service promise guided artifact-build sheet", "columns": [ "Component ID", "Requested artifact component", "Evidence criterion to test", "Supplied input IDs", "Supported entry", "Not-supplied gap or learner proposal", "Authorized owner or reviewer", "Status" ], "rows": [ { "id": "M01-A01", "component": "Service-promise card", "criterion": "Defines meaningful first response, update cadence, ownership, and the difference between response and resolution | Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M01-I01", "M01-I02", "M01-I03", "M01-I04", "M01-I05" ] }, { "id": "M01-A02", "component": "Learner-proposed message examples", "criterion": "Avoids unsupported recovery dates and universal promises | Uses respectful plain language while labeling all three examples as unapproved training drafts", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M01-I04", "M01-I05" ] } ] }, "workbookPlan": { "id": "M01-WP01", "version": "2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2", "contextInputIds": [ "M01-B01", "M01-S01" ], "criterionCatalog": [ { "id": "M01-EC01", "text": "Defines meaningful first response, update cadence, ownership, and the difference between response and resolution" }, { "id": "M01-EC02", "text": "Avoids unsupported recovery dates and universal promises" }, { "id": "M01-EC03", "text": "Uses respectful plain language while labeling all three examples as unapproved training drafts" }, { "id": "M01-EC04", "text": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "M01-A01", "title": "Service-promise card", "type": "brief", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable service-promise card from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Promise type", "Supported definition or commitment", "Evidence and source ID", "Boundary or prohibited promise", "Owner", "Approval status", "Gap or decision needed", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 3, "prefix": "01A01R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "customer-service-certification:M01:A01", "criterionIds": [ "M01-EC01", "M01-EC04" ], "inputIds": [ "M01-I01", "M01-I02", "M01-I03", "M01-I04", "M01-I05" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M01-I01, M01-I02, M01-I03).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M01-EC01, M01-EC04) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Customer-service manager or qualified specialist is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M01-A02", "title": "Learner-proposed message examples", "type": "message", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable learner-proposed message examples from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Draft ID", "Audience and purpose", "Supported facts", "Proposed wording", "Prohibited or unsupported claim", "Reviewer", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 3, "prefix": "MESSAGE", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "customer-service-certification:M01:A02", "criterionIds": [ "M01-EC02", "M01-EC03" ], "inputIds": [ "M01-I04", "M01-I05" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M01-I04, M01-I05).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M01-EC02, M01-EC03) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Customer-service manager or qualified specialist is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] } ], "quantityContracts": [ { "artifactId": "M01-A01", "rowCount": 3, "rowPrefix": "01A01R" }, { "artifactId": "M01-A02", "rowCount": 3, "rowPrefix": "MESSAGE" } ], "workedStarter": { "artifactId": "M01-A01", "criterionId": "M01-EC01", "inputId": "M01-I01", "supportedValue": "Firmware was released to 6,200 active devices on Monday.", "application": "State the supplied condition with its limitation and frame the decision that an authorized reviewer must make. Cite M01-I01 (F01) in the row.", "boundary": "This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed service-promise card or an operational result." }, "knownGap": { "artifactId": "M01-A02", "criterionId": "M01-EC02", "missingEvidence": "The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the learner-proposed message examples.", "whyItMatters": "Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M01-EC02 or represent this artifact as complete.", "ownerRole": "Customer-service manager or qualified specialist", "boundedNextStep": "Record the missing evidence in M01-A02, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise.", "status": "Open — not supplied" }, "decisionPrompt": { "inputId": "M01-I05", "prompt": "What bounded decision can the Customer-service manager or qualified specialist make from M01-I05, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?" }, "instructionalGuide": { "version": "2026.09.01-academy-workbook-instruction-bank-1", "principalArtifactId": "M01-A01", "prerequisiteCheck": [ "Confirm F01, F03, F04, F09, and F10 are available; distinguish the four-business-hour response target from the unsupplied recovery estimate.", "STOP. If the response target is missing or recovery timing conflicts with F09/F10, record that gap and route it to the authorized engineering/service owner; do not claim approved wording, diagnosis, or restoration execution." ], "operatingSteps": [ "Capture the release scale and queue facts with their source IDs and confidence.", "Define first response, progress update, and resolution as three different events.", "Compare the 7.2-hour median and 36 aged cases with the four-business-hour response target; do not convert the target into a resolution promise.", "Draft a cadence rule as a learner proposal and identify the service owner for approval.", "Block the unsupported same-day restoration language and record recovery timing as not supplied.", "Check that every statement cites F01, F03, F04, F09, or F10 and that no message is represented as sent." ], "fieldGuidance": { "Promise type": "Name one commitment category: first response, update cadence, or resolution boundary.", "Supported definition or commitment": "State only a bounded definition supported by the cited service facts; label any proposed cadence as a learner proposal.", "Evidence and source ID": "Cite each material observation as both module input ID and normalized fact ID.", "Boundary or prohibited promise": "State what the commitment does not mean and identify unsupported recovery or universal promises.", "Owner": "Name the authorized operating or specialist role; do not invent a person.", "Approval status": "Use Pending or Not supplied unless the packet explicitly provides an approval.", "Gap or decision needed": "Name the exact wording, cadence, ownership, or escalation decision still required.", "Status": "Use a truthful workflow state such as Draft — review pending, Open — not supplied, or Blocked." }, "completedExampleRow": { "Promise type": "First response and update cadence", "Supported definition or commitment": "Median first response is 7.2 hours against a four-business-hour target, and 36 open cases have waited more than twelve hours.", "Evidence and source ID": "M01-I02 (F03); M01-I03 (F04)", "Boundary or prohibited promise": "First response is not resolution; no recovery date or universal restoration promise is supported.", "Owner": "Customer-service manager", "Approval status": "Pending", "Gap or decision needed": "Approve a proposed update cadence and escalation threshold for delayed cases.", "Status": "Draft — review pending" }, "completedKnownGapRow": { "Promise type": "Resolution boundary", "Supported definition or commitment": "Engineering reproduced schedule reset on one model and has no recovery estimate.", "Evidence and source ID": "M01-I04 (F09); M01-I05 (F10)", "Boundary or prohibited promise": "The drafted same-day restoration promise is unsupported and must not be used.", "Owner": "Qualified engineering reviewer and customer-service manager", "Approval status": "Not supplied", "Gap or decision needed": "Approved holding language and the release gate for any future recovery estimate are not supplied.", "Status": "Blocked — approval not supplied" }, "supportingArtifacts": [], "decisionRule": { "stop": "Stop any draft that promises same-day restoration, diagnosis, or universal recovery.", "go": "Proceed to review when response/update/resolution are distinct and every claim is cited.", "escalate": "Escalate recovery timing and technical wording to the qualified engineering/service owner." }, "completionTest": [ "All three promise types have operational definitions.", "F03/F04 performance facts and F09/F10 limitations are visible.", "Owner approval and sending status remain pending." ], "criterionSatisfiability": [ { "criterionId": "M01-EC01", "criterionOrdinal": 1, "criterionText": "Defines meaningful first response, update cadence, ownership, and the difference between response and resolution", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." }, { "criterionId": "M01-EC02", "criterionOrdinal": 2, "criterionText": "Avoids unsupported recovery dates and universal promises", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." }, { "criterionId": "M01-EC03", "criterionOrdinal": 3, "criterionText": "Uses respectful plain language while labeling all three examples as unapproved training drafts", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." }, { "criterionId": "M01-EC04", "criterionOrdinal": 4, "criterionText": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." } ] } } }, { "module": 2, "title": "Tier verification", "prompt": "Match verification strength and data collection to the risk of each requested action.", "deliverable": "A verification decision table for six common request types.", "evidenceCriteria": [ "Uses the minimum information needed for each action", "Requires stronger approved verification for account-identity changes", "Includes failure, suspected takeover, and accessibility escalation paths", "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" ], "taskMode": "bounded-case-starter", "providedInputs": [ { "id": "M02-I01", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F06" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Some agents request full birth dates for low-risk preference changes." }, { "id": "M02-I02", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F07" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Other agents change account email after verifying only a device nickname." }, { "id": "M02-I03", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F08" ], "confidence": "provisional", "record": "One customer reports an urgent cold-home concern involving an elderly parent." }, { "id": "M02-B01", "kind": "case-brief", "sourceFactIds": [], "sourceRecordIds": [ "CB01" ], "confidence": "mixed", "record": "Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment." }, { "id": "M02-S01", "kind": "assignment-scope", "sourceFactIds": [ "F06", "F07", "F08" ], "confidence": "instruction", "record": "Build a starter version of “A verification decision table for six common request types.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it." } ], "completionBoundary": "Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F06, F07, F08, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.", "starterSchema": { "id": "M02-W02", "title": "Tier verification guided artifact-build sheet", "columns": [ "Component ID", "Requested artifact component", "Evidence criterion to test", "Supplied input IDs", "Supported entry", "Not-supplied gap or learner proposal", "Authorized owner or reviewer", "Status" ], "rows": [ { "id": "M02-A01", "component": "Six-request verification decision table", "criterion": "Uses the minimum information needed for each action | Requires stronger approved verification for account-identity changes | Includes failure, suspected takeover, and accessibility escalation paths | Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M02-I01", "M02-I02", "M02-I03" ] } ] }, "workbookPlan": { "id": "M02-WP01", "version": "2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2", "contextInputIds": [ "M02-B01", "M02-S01" ], "criterionCatalog": [ { "id": "M02-EC01", "text": "Uses the minimum information needed for each action" }, { "id": "M02-EC02", "text": "Requires stronger approved verification for account-identity changes" }, { "id": "M02-EC03", "text": "Includes failure, suspected takeover, and accessibility escalation paths" }, { "id": "M02-EC04", "text": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "M02-A01", "title": "Six-request verification decision table", "type": "matrix", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable six-request verification decision table from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Request type", "Impact", "Minimum data", "Approved verification", "Failure path", "Accessibility/safety escalation", "Owner", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 6, "prefix": "REQUEST", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "customer-service-certification:M02:A01", "criterionIds": [ "M02-EC01", "M02-EC02", "M02-EC03", "M02-EC04" ], "inputIds": [ "M02-I01", "M02-I02", "M02-I03" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M02-I01, M02-I02, M02-I03).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M02-EC01, M02-EC02, M02-EC03, M02-EC04) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Customer-service manager or qualified specialist is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] } ], "quantityContracts": [ { "artifactId": "M02-A01", "rowCount": 6, "rowPrefix": "REQUEST" } ], "workedStarter": { "artifactId": "M02-A01", "criterionId": "M02-EC01", "inputId": "M02-I01", "supportedValue": "Some agents request full birth dates for low-risk preference changes.", "application": "Place the supplied condition in the appropriate comparison row and leave every unsupplied requirement visibly open. Cite M02-I01 (F06) in the row.", "boundary": "This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed six-request verification decision table or an operational result." }, "knownGap": { "artifactId": "M02-A01", "criterionId": "M02-EC01", "missingEvidence": "The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the six-request verification decision table.", "whyItMatters": "Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M02-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete.", "ownerRole": "Customer-service manager or qualified specialist", "boundedNextStep": "Record the missing evidence in M02-A01, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise.", "status": "Open — not supplied" }, "decisionPrompt": { "inputId": "M02-I03", "prompt": "What bounded decision can the Customer-service manager or qualified specialist make from M02-I03, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?" }, "instructionalGuide": { "version": "2026.09.01-academy-workbook-instruction-bank-1", "principalArtifactId": "M02-A01", "prerequisiteCheck": [ "Confirm F06–F08 are available and that no approved verification policy, birth-date rule, takeover procedure, or safety script is supplied.", "STOP. If the approved verification policy, takeover procedure, or safety script is missing or conflicts with F06–F08, record that blocker for the authorized verification-policy owner or designated safety specialist; do not claim approval or execute any identity, access, money, or safety change." ], "operatingSteps": [ "List six request classes as learner-proposed categories, including preference and account-email changes.", "Assign impact and identity risk before choosing data collection.", "Use F06 to reject excessive full-birth-date collection for low-risk preferences.", "Use F07 to require stronger approved verification for account-email changes.", "Add explicit failure, suspected-takeover, urgent/accessibility, and specialist-escalation paths.", "Check that methods are marked proposed and no verification is represented as completed." ], "fieldGuidance": { "Request type": "Name the customer action and include its cited module input/fact ID when it is packet-supported.", "Impact": "Describe the bounded privacy, account, accessibility, or safety consequence supported by the cited fact.", "Minimum data": "List only information necessary for the action; label an unsupplied data rule as a learner proposal.", "Approved verification": "Record the approved method or Not supplied; never convert a learner proposal into policy.", "Failure path": "Define the proposed stop, retry, or takeover-escalation route without claiming execution.", "Accessibility/safety escalation": "State the reasonable-access or urgent-safety route and preserve the authorized-review boundary.", "Owner": "Name the role authorized to approve verification and escalation rules.", "Status": "Use Draft — policy review pending, Open — not supplied, or Blocked." }, "completedExampleRow": { "Request type": "Low-risk preference change — M02-I01 (F06)", "Impact": "Some agents request full birth dates; the packet does not establish that this data is necessary.", "Minimum data": "Learner proposal — collect only the minimum approved attribute needed for the preference change.", "Approved verification": "Not supplied", "Failure path": "Learner proposal — stop the change and route unresolved verification to an authorized owner.", "Accessibility/safety escalation": "Offer an approved accessible verification alternative; method not supplied.", "Owner": "Customer-service manager and privacy reviewer", "Status": "Draft — policy review pending" }, "completedKnownGapRow": { "Request type": "Account-email change — M02-I02 (F07)", "Impact": "Changing account identity after only a device nickname creates an account-takeover risk.", "Minimum data": "Not supplied", "Approved verification": "A stronger approved identity check is required, but its method is not supplied.", "Failure path": "Learner proposal — stop the change and escalate suspected takeover.", "Accessibility/safety escalation": "Accessible alternative and urgent-escalation procedure are not supplied.", "Owner": "Identity/security owner", "Status": "Blocked — approved method not supplied" }, "supportingArtifacts": [], "decisionRule": { "stop": "Stop when the requested action can change identity, access, money, or safety and approved verification is absent or fails.", "go": "Proceed only for the lowest-risk action after the approved minimum verification succeeds.", "escalate": "Escalate takeover signals, accessibility barriers, and urgent safety context to the designated specialist." }, "completionTest": [ "All six request types have risk, minimum-data, failure, and escalation rules.", "No row claims a verification result.", "F06–F08 are cited where used." ], "criterionSatisfiability": [ { "criterionId": "M02-EC01", "criterionOrdinal": 1, "criterionText": "Uses the minimum information needed for each action", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." }, { "criterionId": "M02-EC02", "criterionOrdinal": 2, "criterionText": "Requires stronger approved verification for account-identity changes", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." }, { "criterionId": "M02-EC03", "criterionOrdinal": 3, "criterionText": "Includes failure, suspected takeover, and accessibility escalation paths", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." }, { "criterionId": "M02-EC04", "criterionOrdinal": 4, "criterionText": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." } ] } } }, { "module": 3, "title": "Diagnose without guessing", "prompt": "Create a question and observation flow that preserves diagnostic evidence and separates symptom from cause.", "deliverable": "An issue-triage tree plus a bounded triage-record starter using the aggregate unfamiliar-error category, the schedule-reset evidence, and the urgent cold-home report; record-level error text, device details, and timestamps remain not supplied.", "evidenceCriteria": [ "Provides fields for device model, version, time, observable symptom, and prior action while marking each unavailable record-level value not supplied", "Stops the reset instruction when evidence-preservation rules apply", "Separates the customer report, packet-level observation, and engineering conclusion without inventing an error code or diagnosis" ], "taskMode": "bounded-case-starter", "providedInputs": [ { "id": "M03-I01", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F02" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Support received 184 contacts across four recorded issue categories by Wednesday." }, { "id": "M03-I02", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F05" ], "confidence": "conflicting", "record": "The public reset article conflicts with engineering's instruction to preserve diagnostic logs." }, { "id": "M03-I03", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F08" ], "confidence": "provisional", "record": "One customer reports an urgent cold-home concern involving an elderly parent." }, { "id": "M03-I04", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F09" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Engineering reproduced schedule reset on one model and has no recovery estimate." }, { "id": "M03-B01", "kind": "case-brief", "sourceFactIds": [], "sourceRecordIds": [ "CB01" ], "confidence": "mixed", "record": "Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment." }, { "id": "M03-S01", "kind": "assignment-scope", "sourceFactIds": [ "F02", "F05", "F08", "F09" ], "confidence": "instruction", "record": "Build a starter version of “An issue-triage tree plus a bounded triage-record starter using the aggregate unfamiliar-error category, the schedule-reset evidence, and the urgent cold-home report; record-level error text, device details, and timestamps remain not supplied.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it." } ], "completionBoundary": "Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F02, F05, F08, F09, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.", "starterSchema": { "id": "M03-W02", "title": "Diagnose without guessing guided artifact-build sheet", "columns": [ "Component ID", "Requested artifact component", "Evidence criterion to test", "Supplied input IDs", "Supported entry", "Not-supplied gap or learner proposal", "Authorized owner or reviewer", "Status" ], "rows": [ { "id": "M03-A01", "component": "Issue-triage decision tree", "criterion": "Provides fields for device model, version, time, observable symptom, and prior action while marking each unavailable record-level value not supplied", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M03-I01", "M03-I04", "M03-I02", "M03-I03" ] }, { "id": "M03-A02", "component": "Bounded triage-record starter", "criterion": "Stops the reset instruction when evidence-preservation rules apply", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M03-I02" ] }, { "id": "M03-A03", "component": "Triage evidence-gap register", "criterion": "Separates the customer report, packet-level observation, and engineering conclusion without inventing an error code or diagnosis", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M03-I03" ] } ] }, "workbookPlan": { "id": "M03-WP01", "version": "2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2", "contextInputIds": [ "M03-B01", "M03-S01" ], "criterionCatalog": [ { "id": "M03-EC01", "text": "Provides fields for device model, version, time, observable symptom, and prior action while marking each unavailable record-level value not supplied" }, { "id": "M03-EC02", "text": "Stops the reset instruction when evidence-preservation rules apply" }, { "id": "M03-EC03", "text": "Separates the customer report, packet-level observation, and engineering conclusion without inventing an error code or diagnosis" } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "M03-A01", "title": "Issue-triage decision tree", "type": "map", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable issue-triage decision tree from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Element", "From or trigger", "To or outcome", "Evidence and source ID", "Owner", "Open question", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 5, "prefix": "03A01R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "customer-service-certification:M03:A01", "criterionIds": [ "M03-EC01" ], "inputIds": [ "M03-I01", "M03-I04", "M03-I02", "M03-I03" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M03-I01, M03-I04).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M03-EC01) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Customer-service manager or qualified specialist is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M03-A02", "title": "Bounded triage-record starter", "type": "record", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable bounded triage-record starter from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Record ID", "Supported facts", "Source input ID", "Decision or action pending", "Owner or reviewer", "Evidence needed", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 2, "prefix": "03A02R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "customer-service-certification:M03:A02", "criterionIds": [ "M03-EC02" ], "inputIds": [ "M03-I02" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M03-I02).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M03-EC02) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Customer-service manager or qualified specialist is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M03-A03", "title": "Triage evidence-gap register", "type": "register", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable triage evidence-gap register from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Entry ID", "Issue or event", "Evidence and source ID", "Risk or impact", "Owner", "Bounded next step", "Review point", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 2, "prefix": "03A03R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "customer-service-certification:M03:A03", "criterionIds": [ "M03-EC03" ], "inputIds": [ "M03-I03" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M03-I03).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M03-EC03) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Customer-service manager or qualified specialist is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] } ], "quantityContracts": [ { "artifactId": "M03-A01", "rowCount": 5, "rowPrefix": "03A01R" }, { "artifactId": "M03-A02", "rowCount": 2, "rowPrefix": "03A02R" }, { "artifactId": "M03-A03", "rowCount": 2, "rowPrefix": "03A03R" } ], "workedStarter": { "artifactId": "M03-A01", "criterionId": "M03-EC01", "inputId": "M03-I01", "supportedValue": "Support received 184 contacts across four recorded issue categories by Wednesday.", "application": "Anchor one element of the map to the supplied condition and label any inferred transition as a learner proposal. Cite M03-I01 (F02) in the row.", "boundary": "This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed issue-triage decision tree or an operational result." }, "knownGap": { "artifactId": "M03-A01", "criterionId": "M03-EC01", "missingEvidence": "The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the issue-triage decision tree.", "whyItMatters": "Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M03-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete.", "ownerRole": "Customer-service manager or qualified specialist", "boundedNextStep": "Record the missing evidence in M03-A01, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise.", "status": "Open — not supplied" }, "decisionPrompt": { "inputId": "M03-I02", "prompt": "What bounded decision can the Customer-service manager or qualified specialist make from M03-I02, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?" }, "instructionalGuide": { "version": "2026.09.01-academy-workbook-instruction-bank-1", "principalArtifactId": "M03-A01", "prerequisiteCheck": [ "Confirm F02, F05, F08, and F09 are present; record that model, version, timestamps, error text, prior actions, and approved safety language are absent.", "STOP. If the device details, error record, prior actions, or approved safety language are missing or conflict with F02/F05/F08/F09, route the gap to the qualified service/engineering owner; do not claim diagnostic approval or execute a reset, repair, or safety instruction." ], "operatingSteps": [ "Start with observable symptom and urgency, not a diagnosis.", "Capture device model, version, time, customer-observed symptom, and prior action as required fields.", "Use F05 to stop reset guidance when evidence preservation applies.", "Separate customer report F08 from engineering finding F09 and aggregate contact fact F02.", "Route urgent safety language and technical diagnosis to qualified owners.", "Quality-check every branch for a source ID, open question, owner, and truthful pending status." ], "fieldGuidance": { "Element": "Name the process node, asset, state, or transition. Module use: Use the tree to preserve diagnostic evidence and separate report, observation, and engineering conclusion.", "From or trigger": "State the observable event that activates the path. Module use: Use the tree to preserve diagnostic evidence and separate report, observation, and engineering conclusion.", "To or outcome": "State the proposed next state without implying execution. Module use: Use the tree to preserve diagnostic evidence and separate report, observation, and engineering conclusion.", "Evidence and source ID": "Pair the observation with its exact supplied source ID. Module use: Use the tree to preserve diagnostic evidence and separate report, observation, and engineering conclusion.", "Owner": "Name the authorized operating or specialist role. Module use: Use the tree to preserve diagnostic evidence and separate report, observation, and engineering conclusion.", "Open question": "Record the unanswered question that prevents a final decision. Module use: Use the tree to preserve diagnostic evidence and separate report, observation, and engineering conclusion.", "Status": "Use a truthful state such as draft, open—not supplied, review pending, or blocked. Module use: Use the tree to preserve diagnostic evidence and separate report, observation, and engineering conclusion." }, "completedExampleRow": { "Element": "TRIAGE-01", "From or trigger": "Customer reports schedule reset", "To or outcome": "Preserve logs; request model, version, time, symptom, and prior-action fields before diagnosis.", "Evidence and source ID": "F05, F09", "Owner": "Qualified support and engineering reviewer", "Open question": "Record-level values and approved diagnostic action are not supplied.", "Status": "Draft — review pending" }, "completedKnownGapRow": { "Element": "TRIAGE-02", "From or trigger": "Urgent cold-home report", "To or outcome": "Pause diagnosis and route for authorized immediate-safety wording.", "Evidence and source ID": "F08", "Owner": "Qualified safety/service owner", "Open question": "Temperature, device state, timestamps, and approved safety language are not supplied.", "Status": "Open — escalation required" }, "supportingArtifacts": [], "decisionRule": { "stop": "Stop reset or diagnostic guidance when logs may be lost, facts are incomplete, or safety is implicated.", "go": "Continue bounded questioning when observations can be captured without altering evidence.", "escalate": "Escalate safety, unknown device state, and conflicting guidance to qualified service/engineering owners." }, "completionTest": [ "Every branch distinguishes report, observation, and conclusion.", "Required diagnostic fields and preservation stop are explicit.", "No error code, diagnosis, or safety instruction is invented." ], "criterionSatisfiability": [ { "criterionId": "M03-EC01", "criterionOrdinal": 1, "criterionText": "Provides fields for device model, version, time, observable symptom, and prior action while marking each unavailable record-level value not supplied", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." }, { "criterionId": "M03-EC02", "criterionOrdinal": 2, "criterionText": "Stops the reset instruction when evidence-preservation rules apply", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." }, { "criterionId": "M03-EC03", "criterionOrdinal": 3, "criterionText": "Separates the customer report, packet-level observation, and engineering conclusion without inventing an error code or diagnosis", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." } ] } } }, { "module": 4, "title": "Repair notes and knowledge", "prompt": "Rewrite weak notes and version the conflicting article through the approved knowledge process.", "deliverable": "A case-note quality audit, one corrected starter note using F05, F09, and F11, a blank note template, and a knowledge-base change record.", "evidenceCriteria": [ "The worked starter note captures only supplied facts, approved-step gaps, observed outcome, owner gap, and next-action gap", "Links the proposed article change to engineering authority and a future effective version without claiming approval", "Defines how obsolete reset guidance would be contained while authorized review remains pending", "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" ], "taskMode": "bounded-case-starter", "providedInputs": [ { "id": "M04-I01", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F05" ], "confidence": "conflicting", "record": "The public reset article conflicts with engineering's instruction to preserve diagnostic logs." }, { "id": "M04-I02", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F09" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Engineering reproduced schedule reset on one model and has no recovery estimate." }, { "id": "M04-I03", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F11" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Case notes often omit observations, attempted steps, result, owner, and next action." }, { "id": "M04-B01", "kind": "case-brief", "sourceFactIds": [], "sourceRecordIds": [ "CB01" ], "confidence": "mixed", "record": "Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment." }, { "id": "M04-S01", "kind": "assignment-scope", "sourceFactIds": [ "F05", "F09", "F11" ], "confidence": "instruction", "record": "Build a starter version of “A case-note quality audit, one corrected starter note using F05, F09, and F11, a blank note template, and a knowledge-base change record.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it." } ], "completionBoundary": "Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F05, F09, F11, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.", "starterSchema": { "id": "M04-W02", "title": "Repair notes and knowledge guided artifact-build sheet", "columns": [ "Component ID", "Requested artifact component", "Evidence criterion to test", "Supplied input IDs", "Supported entry", "Not-supplied gap or learner proposal", "Authorized owner or reviewer", "Status" ], "rows": [ { "id": "M04-A01", "component": "Case-note quality audit", "criterion": "The worked starter note captures only supplied facts, approved-step gaps, observed outcome, owner gap, and next-action gap", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M04-I03", "M04-I01" ] }, { "id": "M04-A02", "component": "Corrected starter note", "criterion": "The worked starter note captures only supplied facts, approved-step gaps, observed outcome, owner gap, and next-action gap", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M04-I02" ] }, { "id": "M04-A03", "component": "Blank case-note template", "criterion": "Defines how obsolete reset guidance would be contained while authorized review remains pending", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M04-I02" ] }, { "id": "M04-A04", "component": "Knowledge-base change record", "criterion": "Links the proposed article change to engineering authority and a future effective version without claiming approval | Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M04-I01" ] } ] }, "workbookPlan": { "id": "M04-WP01", "version": "2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2", "contextInputIds": [ "M04-B01", "M04-S01" ], "criterionCatalog": [ { "id": "M04-EC01", "text": "The worked starter note captures only supplied facts, approved-step gaps, observed outcome, owner gap, and next-action gap" }, { "id": "M04-EC02", "text": "Links the proposed article change to engineering authority and a future effective version without claiming approval" }, { "id": "M04-EC03", "text": "Defines how obsolete reset guidance would be contained while authorized review remains pending" }, { "id": "M04-EC04", "text": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "M04-A01", "title": "Case-note quality audit", "type": "checklist", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable case-note quality audit from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Check ID", "Control or check", "Evidence required", "Source input ID", "Owner", "Result", "Exception or gap", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 5, "prefix": "04A01R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "customer-service-certification:M04:A01", "criterionIds": [ "M04-EC01" ], "inputIds": [ "M04-I03", "M04-I01" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M04-I03).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M04-EC01) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Customer-service manager or qualified specialist is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M04-A02", "title": "Corrected starter note", "type": "record", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable corrected starter note from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Record ID", "Supported facts", "Source input ID", "Decision or action pending", "Owner or reviewer", "Evidence needed", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 1, "prefix": "04A02R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "customer-service-certification:M04:A02", "criterionIds": [ "M04-EC01" ], "inputIds": [ "M04-I02" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M04-I02).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M04-EC01) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Customer-service manager or qualified specialist is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M04-A03", "title": "Blank case-note template", "type": "template", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable blank case-note template from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Section or field", "Purpose", "Supported entry", "Source input ID", "Gap or learner proposal", "Owner or reviewer", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 1, "prefix": "04A03R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "customer-service-certification:M04:A03", "criterionIds": [ "M04-EC03" ], "inputIds": [ "M04-I02" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M04-I02).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M04-EC03) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Customer-service manager or qualified specialist is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M04-A04", "title": "Knowledge-base change record", "type": "record", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable knowledge-base change record from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Record ID", "Supported facts", "Source input ID", "Decision or action pending", "Owner or reviewer", "Evidence needed", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 1, "prefix": "04A04R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "customer-service-certification:M04:A04", "criterionIds": [ "M04-EC02", "M04-EC04" ], "inputIds": [ "M04-I01" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M04-I01).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M04-EC02, M04-EC04) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Customer-service manager or qualified specialist is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] } ], "quantityContracts": [ { "artifactId": "M04-A01", "rowCount": 5, "rowPrefix": "04A01R" } ], "workedStarter": { "artifactId": "M04-A01", "criterionId": "M04-EC01", "inputId": "M04-I03", "supportedValue": "Case notes often omit observations, attempted steps, result, owner, and next action.", "application": "Use the supplied condition to define one check, then mark the result pending until the required verification evidence exists. Cite M04-I03 (F11) in the row.", "boundary": "This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed case-note quality audit or an operational result." }, "knownGap": { "artifactId": "M04-A01", "criterionId": "M04-EC01", "missingEvidence": "The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the case-note quality audit.", "whyItMatters": "Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M04-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete.", "ownerRole": "Customer-service manager or qualified specialist", "boundedNextStep": "Record the missing evidence in M04-A01, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise.", "status": "Open — not supplied" }, "decisionPrompt": { "inputId": "M04-I01", "prompt": "What bounded decision can the Customer-service manager or qualified specialist make from M04-I01, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?" }, "instructionalGuide": { "version": "2026.09.01-academy-workbook-instruction-bank-1", "principalArtifactId": "M04-A01", "prerequisiteCheck": [ "Confirm F05, F09, and F11; obtain no live note, approved article, effective version, or approval result.", "STOP. If the live note, article authority, effective version, or approval result is missing or conflicts with F05/F09/F11, route it to the authorized engineering and knowledge owners; do not claim article approval or execute publication, reuse, or containment." ], "operatingSteps": [ "Turn the five missing note elements in F11 into separate observable checks.", "Evaluate observation, attempted steps, result, owner, and next action independently.", "Use F05 to flag the conflicting reset article and evidence-preservation requirement.", "Use F09 only as an engineering finding with no recovery estimate.", "Route article authority/effective-version decisions to engineering and the knowledge owner.", "Confirm audit results describe packet evidence, not a reviewed live note." ], "fieldGuidance": { "Check ID": "Use a stable identifier for the quality or control check. Module use: Use the audit to test note completeness and route the conflicting knowledge article for controlled repair.", "Control or check": "State one observable check in verb-first form. Module use: Use the audit to test note completeness and route the conflicting knowledge article for controlled repair.", "Evidence required": "Name the record or observation needed to pass the check. Module use: Use the audit to test note completeness and route the conflicting knowledge article for controlled repair.", "Source input ID": "Cite the exact Fxx or module input ID supporting the entry. Module use: Use the audit to test note completeness and route the conflicting knowledge article for controlled repair.", "Owner": "Name the authorized operating or specialist role. Module use: Use the audit to test note completeness and route the conflicting knowledge article for controlled repair.", "Result": "Record pending unless the packet explicitly supplies an observed result. Module use: Use the audit to test note completeness and route the conflicting knowledge article for controlled repair.", "Exception or gap": "Describe the missing or conflicting evidence and its consequence. Module use: Use the audit to test note completeness and route the conflicting knowledge article for controlled repair.", "Status": "Use a truthful state such as draft, open—not supplied, review pending, or blocked. Module use: Use the audit to test note completeness and route the conflicting knowledge article for controlled repair." }, "completedExampleRow": { "Check ID": "NOTE-OBS", "Control or check": "Check that observable symptoms are recorded.", "Evidence required": "F11 states case notes often omit observations.", "Source input ID": "F11", "Owner": "Service quality reviewer", "Result": "Aggregate issue supplied in F11; row-level result pending.", "Exception or gap": "Individual note sample not supplied.", "Status": "Draft audit — review pending" }, "completedKnownGapRow": { "Check ID": "KB-AUTH", "Control or check": "Check reset guidance against engineering preservation instruction.", "Evidence required": "F05 identifies a conflict.", "Source input ID": "F05", "Owner": "Knowledge owner and engineering reviewer", "Result": "Pending", "Exception or gap": "Approved replacement wording, version, and effective date not supplied.", "Status": "Open — publication blocked" }, "supportingArtifacts": [], "decisionRule": { "stop": "Stop publishing or reusing reset guidance while engineering authority and effective version are unresolved.", "go": "Proceed to reviewer inspection when all five note checks and source IDs are present.", "escalate": "Escalate content authority and obsolete-article containment to engineering and the knowledge owner." }, "completionTest": [ "Five note-quality checks are separately inspectable.", "F05/F09/F11 roles are not conflated.", "No individual note audit or article approval is claimed." ], "criterionSatisfiability": [ { "criterionId": "M04-EC01", "criterionOrdinal": 1, "criterionText": "The worked starter note captures only supplied facts, approved-step gaps, observed outcome, owner gap, and next-action gap", "currentSatisfiable": false, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The current canonical principal-artifact route or schema cannot visibly satisfy this criterion without the listed fact-routing and/or artifact-spec repair; the learner must record the gap rather than claim completion." }, { "criterionId": "M04-EC02", "criterionOrdinal": 2, "criterionText": "Links the proposed article change to engineering authority and a future effective version without claiming approval", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." }, { "criterionId": "M04-EC03", "criterionOrdinal": 3, "criterionText": "Defines how obsolete reset guidance would be contained while authorized review remains pending", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." }, { "criterionId": "M04-EC04", "criterionOrdinal": 4, "criterionText": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." } ] } } }, { "module": 5, "title": "Escalate risk and emotion", "prompt": "Respond to the urgent cold-home report without diagnosing or making an unverified safety promise.", "deliverable": "A de-escalation script draft, urgent-escalation record starter, and manager decision request with approved emergency wording marked not supplied.", "evidenceCriteria": [ "Acknowledges concern without confirming unknown conditions", "Requests and leaves a placeholder for authorized immediate safety direction while routing to qualified escalation; it does not diagnose or issue unsupplied instructions", "States supplied facts, uncertainty, urgency, owner field, and decision needed without claiming an escalation occurred", "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" ], "taskMode": "bounded-case-starter", "providedInputs": [ { "id": "M05-I01", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F08" ], "confidence": "provisional", "record": "One customer reports an urgent cold-home concern involving an elderly parent." }, { "id": "M05-I02", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F09" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Engineering reproduced schedule reset on one model and has no recovery estimate." }, { "id": "M05-I03", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F10" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "A team lead drafted an unsupported same-day restoration promise." }, { "id": "M05-B01", "kind": "case-brief", "sourceFactIds": [], "sourceRecordIds": [ "CB01" ], "confidence": "mixed", "record": "Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment." }, { "id": "M05-S01", "kind": "assignment-scope", "sourceFactIds": [ "F08", "F09", "F10" ], "confidence": "instruction", "record": "Build a starter version of “A de-escalation script draft, urgent-escalation record starter, and manager decision request with approved emergency wording marked not supplied.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it." } ], "completionBoundary": "Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F08, F09, F10, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.", "starterSchema": { "id": "M05-W02", "title": "Escalate risk and emotion guided artifact-build sheet", "columns": [ "Component ID", "Requested artifact component", "Evidence criterion to test", "Supplied input IDs", "Supported entry", "Not-supplied gap or learner proposal", "Authorized owner or reviewer", "Status" ], "rows": [ { "id": "M05-A01", "component": "De-escalation script draft", "criterion": "Acknowledges concern without confirming unknown conditions | Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M05-I01", "M05-I02", "M05-I03" ] }, { "id": "M05-A02", "component": "Urgent-escalation record", "criterion": "Requests and leaves a placeholder for authorized immediate safety direction while routing to qualified escalation; it does not diagnose or issue unsupplied instructions", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M05-I02" ] }, { "id": "M05-A03", "component": "Manager decision request", "criterion": "States supplied facts, uncertainty, urgency, owner field, and decision needed without claiming an escalation occurred", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M05-I03" ] } ] }, "workbookPlan": { "id": "M05-WP01", "version": "2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2", "contextInputIds": [ "M05-B01", "M05-S01" ], "criterionCatalog": [ { "id": "M05-EC01", "text": "Acknowledges concern without confirming unknown conditions" }, { "id": "M05-EC02", "text": "Requests and leaves a placeholder for authorized immediate safety direction while routing to qualified escalation; it does not diagnose or issue unsupplied instructions" }, { "id": "M05-EC03", "text": "States supplied facts, uncertainty, urgency, owner field, and decision needed without claiming an escalation occurred" }, { "id": "M05-EC04", "text": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "M05-A01", "title": "De-escalation script draft", "type": "message", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable de-escalation script draft from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Draft ID", "Audience and purpose", "Supported facts", "Proposed wording", "Prohibited or unsupported claim", "Reviewer", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 1, "prefix": "05A01R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "customer-service-certification:M05:A01", "criterionIds": [ "M05-EC01", "M05-EC04" ], "inputIds": [ "M05-I01", "M05-I02", "M05-I03" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M05-I01).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M05-EC01, M05-EC04) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Customer-service manager or qualified specialist is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M05-A02", "title": "Urgent-escalation record", "type": "record", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable urgent-escalation record from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Record ID", "Supported facts", "Source input ID", "Decision or action pending", "Owner or reviewer", "Evidence needed", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 1, "prefix": "05A02R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "customer-service-certification:M05:A02", "criterionIds": [ "M05-EC02" ], "inputIds": [ "M05-I02" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M05-I02).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M05-EC02) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Customer-service manager or qualified specialist is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M05-A03", "title": "Manager decision request", "type": "decision", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable manager decision request from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Decision", "Evidence for", "Evidence against", "Options and tradeoffs", "Decision owner", "Required approval", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 1, "prefix": "05A03R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "customer-service-certification:M05:A03", "criterionIds": [ "M05-EC03" ], "inputIds": [ "M05-I03" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M05-I03).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M05-EC03) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Customer-service manager or qualified specialist is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] } ], "quantityContracts": [], "workedStarter": { "artifactId": "M05-A01", "criterionId": "M05-EC01", "inputId": "M05-I01", "supportedValue": "One customer reports an urgent cold-home concern involving an elderly parent.", "application": "Translate the supplied condition into bounded draft language while excluding unsupported promises, outcomes, or approvals. Cite M05-I01 (F08) in the row.", "boundary": "This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed de-escalation script draft or an operational result." }, "knownGap": { "artifactId": "M05-A03", "criterionId": "M05-EC03", "missingEvidence": "The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the manager decision request.", "whyItMatters": "Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M05-EC03 or represent this artifact as complete.", "ownerRole": "Customer-service manager or qualified specialist", "boundedNextStep": "Record the missing evidence in M05-A03, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise.", "status": "Open — not supplied" }, "decisionPrompt": { "inputId": "M05-I03", "prompt": "What bounded decision can the Customer-service manager or qualified specialist make from M05-I03, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?" }, "instructionalGuide": { "version": "2026.09.01-academy-workbook-instruction-bank-1", "principalArtifactId": "M05-A01", "prerequisiteCheck": [ "Confirm F08–F10; acknowledge that actual conditions, diagnosis, immediate safety wording, recovery estimate, and completed escalation are not supplied.", "STOP. If actual conditions, diagnosis, immediate safety wording, or recovery timing are missing or conflict with F08–F10, route the draft to the qualified safety/engineering reviewer; do not claim approval, sending, completed escalation, diagnosis, or restoration execution." ], "operatingSteps": [ "Open with respectful acknowledgment of the reported urgency.", "Restate only the customer report in F08 and do not confirm the underlying condition.", "Add a visible placeholder for authorized immediate-safety wording.", "Use F09 to avoid a recovery estimate and F10 to prohibit the same-day promise.", "Name the qualified escalation route and decision requested without claiming handoff.", "Review for diagnosis, safety instruction, promise, or completion language before approval." ], "fieldGuidance": { "Draft ID": "Use a stable training-draft identifier. Module use: Use the draft to de-escalate emotion while preserving uncertainty and specialist authority.", "Audience and purpose": "Name the intended audience and the bounded communication purpose. Module use: Use the draft to de-escalate emotion while preserving uncertainty and specialist authority.", "Supported facts": "Include only cited case facts and preserve their confidence. Module use: Use the draft to de-escalate emotion while preserving uncertainty and specialist authority.", "Proposed wording": "Write reviewable draft language; do not imply it was sent or approved. Module use: Use the draft to de-escalate emotion while preserving uncertainty and specialist authority.", "Prohibited or unsupported claim": "Name claims, promises, diagnoses, or results the evidence cannot support. Module use: Use the draft to de-escalate emotion while preserving uncertainty and specialist authority.", "Reviewer": "Name the qualified review role and leave approval pending. Module use: Use the draft to de-escalate emotion while preserving uncertainty and specialist authority.", "Status": "Use a truthful state such as draft, open—not supplied, review pending, or blocked. Module use: Use the draft to de-escalate emotion while preserving uncertainty and specialist authority." }, "completedExampleRow": { "Draft ID": "MSG-URGENT-01", "Audience and purpose": "Customer holding response for urgent cold-home report", "Supported facts": "Customer reports an urgent cold-home concern involving an elderly parent (F08); engineering has no recovery estimate (F09).", "Proposed wording": "We understand the urgency. We are routing this for qualified review; approved immediate-safety wording is not supplied in this exercise.", "Prohibited or unsupported claim": "Diagnosis, same-day restoration, and unsupplied safety instruction.", "Reviewer": "Service manager and qualified specialist", "Status": "Unapproved training draft" }, "completedKnownGapRow": { "Draft ID": "MSG-RECOVERY-02", "Audience and purpose": "Recovery-time update", "Supported facts": "No recovery estimate is supplied (F09).", "Proposed wording": "Recovery timing remains pending qualified review.", "Prohibited or unsupported claim": "Same-day restoration promise in F10.", "Reviewer": "Engineering/service owner", "Status": "Open — not supplied" }, "supportingArtifacts": [], "decisionRule": { "stop": "Stop if the wording diagnoses, gives unsupplied safety instructions, or promises restoration.", "go": "Proceed to human review when concern, facts, uncertainty, and escalation are explicit.", "escalate": "Escalate urgent safety wording and recovery timing to qualified specialists." }, "completionTest": [ "Draft contains acknowledgment, fact boundary, owner route, and decision request.", "F08–F10 limitations are explicit.", "Sent/approved/escalated status remains false or pending." ], "criterionSatisfiability": [ { "criterionId": "M05-EC01", "criterionOrdinal": 1, "criterionText": "Acknowledges concern without confirming unknown conditions", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." }, { "criterionId": "M05-EC02", "criterionOrdinal": 2, "criterionText": "Requests and leaves a placeholder for authorized immediate safety direction while routing to qualified escalation; it does not diagnose or issue unsupplied instructions", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." }, { "criterionId": "M05-EC03", "criterionOrdinal": 3, "criterionText": "States supplied facts, uncertainty, urgency, owner field, and decision needed without claiming an escalation occurred", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." }, { "criterionId": "M05-EC04", "criterionOrdinal": 4, "criterionText": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." } ] } } }, { "module": 6, "title": "Build quality feedback", "prompt": "Replace complaint-only scoring and average-based critical-failure treatment with a defensible review system.", "deliverable": "A sampling plan, scorecard, calibration exercise, and coaching log.", "evidenceCriteria": [ "Uses representative sampling plus targeted risk review", "Defines privacy, security, safety, and honesty critical failures separately", "Connects findings to coaching, knowledge repair, retest, and trend monitoring", "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" ], "taskMode": "bounded-case-starter", "providedInputs": [ { "id": "M06-I01", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F01" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Firmware was released to 6,200 active devices on Monday." }, { "id": "M06-I02", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F02" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Support received 184 contacts across four recorded issue categories by Wednesday." }, { "id": "M06-I03", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F03" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "The median first response is 7.2 hours against a four-business-hour target." }, { "id": "M06-I04", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F04" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Thirty-six open cases have waited longer than twelve hours." }, { "id": "M06-I05", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F11" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Case notes often omit observations, attempted steps, result, owner, and next action." }, { "id": "M06-I06", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F12" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Quality sampling covers only complaints and averages privacy failures into total scores." }, { "id": "M06-B01", "kind": "case-brief", "sourceFactIds": [], "sourceRecordIds": [ "CB01" ], "confidence": "mixed", "record": "Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment." }, { "id": "M06-S01", "kind": "assignment-scope", "sourceFactIds": [ "F01", "F02", "F03", "F04", "F11", "F12" ], "confidence": "instruction", "record": "Build a starter version of “A sampling plan, scorecard, calibration exercise, and coaching log.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it." } ], "completionBoundary": "Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F01, F02, F03, F04, F11, F12, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.", "starterSchema": { "id": "M06-W02", "title": "Build quality feedback guided artifact-build sheet", "columns": [ "Component ID", "Requested artifact component", "Evidence criterion to test", "Supplied input IDs", "Supported entry", "Not-supplied gap or learner proposal", "Authorized owner or reviewer", "Status" ], "rows": [ { "id": "M06-A01", "component": "Quality sampling plan", "criterion": "Uses representative sampling plus targeted risk review", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M06-I01", "M06-I05", "M06-I02", "M06-I06" ] }, { "id": "M06-A02", "component": "Service quality scorecard", "criterion": "Defines privacy, security, safety, and honesty critical failures separately", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M06-I02", "M06-I06" ] }, { "id": "M06-A03", "component": "Calibration exercise", "criterion": "Connects findings to coaching, knowledge repair, retest, and trend monitoring", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M06-I03" ] }, { "id": "M06-A04", "component": "Coaching log", "criterion": "Connects findings to coaching, knowledge repair, retest, and trend monitoring | Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M06-I04" ] } ] }, "workbookPlan": { "id": "M06-WP01", "version": "2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2", "contextInputIds": [ "M06-B01", "M06-S01" ], "criterionCatalog": [ { "id": "M06-EC01", "text": "Uses representative sampling plus targeted risk review" }, { "id": "M06-EC02", "text": "Defines privacy, security, safety, and honesty critical failures separately" }, { "id": "M06-EC03", "text": "Connects findings to coaching, knowledge repair, retest, and trend monitoring" }, { "id": "M06-EC04", "text": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "M06-A01", "title": "Quality sampling plan", "type": "plan", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable quality sampling plan from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Step or milestone", "Trigger or date", "Evidence and source ID", "Owner", "Gate or threshold", "Dependency or gap", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 6, "prefix": "06A01R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "customer-service-certification:M06:A01", "criterionIds": [ "M06-EC01" ], "inputIds": [ "M06-I01", "M06-I05", "M06-I02", "M06-I06" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M06-I01, M06-I05).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M06-EC01) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Customer-service manager or qualified specialist is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M06-A02", "title": "Service quality scorecard", "type": "scorecard", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable service quality scorecard from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Metric", "Definition", "Evidence source", "Provisional threshold", "Owner", "Review cadence", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 2, "prefix": "06A02R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "customer-service-certification:M06:A02", "criterionIds": [ "M06-EC02" ], "inputIds": [ "M06-I02", "M06-I06" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M06-I02, M06-I06).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M06-EC02) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Customer-service manager or qualified specialist is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M06-A03", "title": "Calibration exercise", "type": "worksheet", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable calibration exercise from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Row ID", "Subject", "Supported observation", "Source input ID", "Analysis or learner proposal", "Not-supplied gap", "Reviewer", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 2, "prefix": "06A03R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "customer-service-certification:M06:A03", "criterionIds": [ "M06-EC03" ], "inputIds": [ "M06-I03" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M06-I03).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M06-EC03) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Customer-service manager or qualified specialist is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M06-A04", "title": "Coaching log", "type": "register", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable coaching log from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Entry ID", "Issue or event", "Evidence and source ID", "Risk or impact", "Owner", "Bounded next step", "Review point", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 2, "prefix": "06A04R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "customer-service-certification:M06:A04", "criterionIds": [ "M06-EC03", "M06-EC04" ], "inputIds": [ "M06-I04" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M06-I04).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M06-EC03, M06-EC04) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Customer-service manager or qualified specialist is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] } ], "quantityContracts": [ { "artifactId": "M06-A01", "rowCount": 6, "rowPrefix": "06A01R" }, { "artifactId": "M06-A02", "rowCount": 2, "rowPrefix": "06A02R" }, { "artifactId": "M06-A03", "rowCount": 2, "rowPrefix": "06A03R" }, { "artifactId": "M06-A04", "rowCount": 2, "rowPrefix": "06A04R" } ], "workedStarter": { "artifactId": "M06-A01", "criterionId": "M06-EC01", "inputId": "M06-I01", "supportedValue": "Firmware was released to 6,200 active devices on Monday.", "application": "Use the supplied condition to define one bounded step and a review gate; leave dates and execution results pending unless supplied. Cite M06-I01 (F01) in the row.", "boundary": "This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed quality sampling plan or an operational result." }, "knownGap": { "artifactId": "M06-A01", "criterionId": "M06-EC01", "missingEvidence": "The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the quality sampling plan.", "whyItMatters": "Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M06-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete.", "ownerRole": "Customer-service manager or qualified specialist", "boundedNextStep": "Record the missing evidence in M06-A01, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise.", "status": "Open — not supplied" }, "decisionPrompt": { "inputId": "M06-I05", "prompt": "What bounded decision can the Customer-service manager or qualified specialist make from M06-I05, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?" }, "instructionalGuide": { "version": "2026.09.01-academy-workbook-instruction-bank-1", "principalArtifactId": "M06-A01", "prerequisiteCheck": [ "Confirm F01–F04, F11, and F12; record that contact-level population, approved sample size, critical-failure rule, reviewers, and results are absent.", "STOP. If the population access, sample size, critical-failure rule, or reviewer assignment is missing or conflicts with F01–F04/F11/F12, route the plan to the authorized quality-program reviewer; do not claim sampling approval, review execution, or quality results." ], "operatingSteps": [ "Define the review population and four issue categories from F02.", "Create a representative sampling stratum plus targeted review for privacy, security, safety, and honesty risk.", "Use F12 to separate critical failures from average scoring.", "Define provisional sample size, cadence, and escalation threshold for authorized approval.", "Connect findings to coaching, knowledge repair, retest, and trend review.", "Check that no sample selection, review result, or coaching action is represented as completed." ], "fieldGuidance": { "Step or milestone": "Name one ordered action or decision checkpoint. Module use: Use the plan to replace complaint-only sampling with representative and risk-targeted review.", "Trigger or date": "Use a supplied trigger; write date not supplied when absent. Module use: Use the plan to replace complaint-only sampling with representative and risk-targeted review.", "Evidence and source ID": "Pair the observation with its exact supplied source ID. Module use: Use the plan to replace complaint-only sampling with representative and risk-targeted review.", "Owner": "Name the authorized operating or specialist role. Module use: Use the plan to replace complaint-only sampling with representative and risk-targeted review.", "Gate or threshold": "State a measurable provisional gate and who must approve it. Module use: Use the plan to replace complaint-only sampling with representative and risk-targeted review.", "Dependency or gap": "Name the evidence, owner, or prerequisite that blocks progression. Module use: Use the plan to replace complaint-only sampling with representative and risk-targeted review.", "Status": "Use a truthful state such as draft, open—not supplied, review pending, or blocked. Module use: Use the plan to replace complaint-only sampling with representative and risk-targeted review." }, "completedExampleRow": { "Step or milestone": "SAMPLE-01", "Trigger or date": "Before weekly quality review", "Evidence and source ID": "F02: 184 contacts across four categories; F12: sampling is complaint-only and averages privacy failures.", "Owner": "Quality owner", "Gate or threshold": "Learner proposal: representative category sample plus 100% review of defined critical-risk cases.", "Dependency or gap": "Contact-level sampling frame and approved threshold not supplied.", "Status": "Draft — approval pending" }, "completedKnownGapRow": { "Step or milestone": "SAMPLE-02", "Trigger or date": "Before selecting records", "Evidence and source ID": "F11 reports common note omissions.", "Owner": "Service QA reviewer", "Gate or threshold": "Gate: sampling frame and access authorization must be approved.", "Dependency or gap": "Record list, reviewers, and privacy handling are not supplied.", "Status": "Blocked — not supplied" }, "supportingArtifacts": [], "decisionRule": { "stop": "Stop selection or review when access, sampling frame, or critical-failure definitions are not approved.", "go": "Proceed to design review when representative and targeted strata, cadence, and owner are defined.", "escalate": "Escalate any privacy, security, safety, or honesty critical failure outside average scoring." }, "completionTest": [ "Population, strata, cadence, owner, and provisional gate are present.", "Critical failures are separate from average score.", "Execution and results remain pending." ], "criterionSatisfiability": [ { "criterionId": "M06-EC01", "criterionOrdinal": 1, "criterionText": "Uses representative sampling plus targeted risk review", "currentSatisfiable": false, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The current canonical principal-artifact route or schema cannot visibly satisfy this criterion without the listed fact-routing and/or artifact-spec repair; the learner must record the gap rather than claim completion." }, { "criterionId": "M06-EC02", "criterionOrdinal": 2, "criterionText": "Defines privacy, security, safety, and honesty critical failures separately", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." }, { "criterionId": "M06-EC03", "criterionOrdinal": 3, "criterionText": "Connects findings to coaching, knowledge repair, retest, and trend monitoring", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." }, { "criterionId": "M06-EC04", "criterionOrdinal": 4, "criterionText": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "The criterion is teachable through the bounded instructions and artifact row, but operational evidence, execution, and reviewer acceptance remain pending." } ] } } } ], "ambiguities": [ { "issue": "The customer describes an urgent safety concern, but the agent cannot verify conditions or determine medical or building risk.", "judgmentRequired": "Choose immediate approved safety direction and escalation while preserving empathy and avoiding diagnosis.", "doNotAssume": "Do not dismiss the concern, confirm a medical danger, or promise device restoration." }, { "issue": "Closing cases after sending an article may improve backlog metrics while leaving issues unresolved and destroying diagnostic evidence.", "judgmentRequired": "Define closure and pending-investigation states that reflect customer outcome and ownership.", "doNotAssume": "Do not optimize queue counts by relabeling unresolved work as complete." } ], "debrief": { "principle": "There is no single universal script for every customer. Strong service uses verified facts, proportionate controls, honest commitments, accessible choices, and qualified escalation.", "moduleGuides": [ { "module": 1, "reasoning": "A service target can be measurable without promising a resolution outside the team's control. The strongest messages explain ownership, next update, and what remains unknown.", "strongEvidence": [ "Defined response and update standard", "Claim-reviewed message examples" ] }, { "module": 2, "reasoning": "Verification should rise with action risk and avoid unnecessary collection. A device nickname may support troubleshooting context but cannot authorize a material account change.", "strongEvidence": [ "Action-to-risk table", "Approved alternative and failure paths" ] }, { "module": 3, "reasoning": "Diagnosis begins with observable facts and preserves evidence. A learner may choose different questions, but the flow must not convert correlation or customer blame into cause.", "strongEvidence": [ "Fact-separated triage record", "Evidence-preservation stop condition" ] }, { "module": 4, "reasoning": "Notes should let the next agent continue safely without rereading everything. Knowledge changes require source authority, versioning, distribution, and removal of obsolete guidance.", "strongEvidence": [ "Actionable structured notes", "Approved knowledge change trail" ] }, { "module": 5, "reasoning": "Empathy and urgency can coexist with clear limits. The agent should route safety concerns using approved guidance and give specialists a concise, factual decision request.", "strongEvidence": [ "Risk-aware escalation packet", "No-diagnosis and no-guarantee language" ] }, { "module": 6, "reasoning": "Complaint cases reveal risk but are not representative of all work. Critical failures should not disappear inside an average, and calibration should test reviewer agreement.", "strongEvidence": [ "Representative sampling logic", "Critical-failure and calibration record" ] } ], "specialistEscalations": [ { "trigger": "Reported immediate safety, health, freezing, fire, electrical, or vulnerable-person concern", "specialist": "Approved emergency or safety pathway, qualified technical responder, and local emergency services when the policy directs", "boundary": "The agent does not diagnose conditions or substitute for emergency or technical professionals." }, { "trigger": "Warranty, privacy, account takeover, identity, product-liability, or legally binding resolution", "specialist": "Authorized warranty, privacy, security, legal, or product-safety owner", "boundary": "The learner records and routes facts but cannot promise coverage or make a legal determination." } ] }, "caseBriefId": "CB01" }