# Harbor Home support recovery — evidence-and-artifact workbook

**Case packet version:** 2026.08.31-practice-3

**Case brief record:** CB01

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.

## How to use this workbook

Complete only what the fictional packet supports. Cite the module input ID beside each material statement. Write **not supplied** for missing operational records, approvals, dates, test results, or identities. Label anything you design as a **learner proposal**. Do not contact people, access systems, run tests, sign records, or present a proposed control as an observed fact. Each module contains a prerequisite gate, six-to-eight task-specific operating steps, field-by-field guidance, schema-exact supported and known-gap examples, supporting-artifact examples where authored, stop/go/escalate rules, a completion test, blank artifact tables, and mapped criteria. Row counts are contractual: if an assignment calls for 47 requirements, 20 records, 40 evaluations, or 27 tasks, the corresponding table contains that many stable rows.

## Module 1 — Reset the service promise

**Task mode:** bounded-case-starter

**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.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M01-I01 | case-fact | F01 | Firmware was released to 6,200 active devices on Monday. | |
| M01-I02 | case-fact | F03 | The median first response is 7.2 hours against a four-business-hour target. | |
| M01-I03 | case-fact | F04 | Thirty-six open cases have waited longer than twelve hours. | |
| M01-I04 | case-fact | F09 | Engineering reproduced schedule reset on one model and has no recovery estimate. | |
| M01-I05 | case-fact | F10 | A team lead drafted an unsupported same-day restoration promise. | |
| M01-B01 | case-brief | CB01 | 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. | |
| M01-S01 | assignment-scope | F01, F03, F04, F09, F10 | 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. | |

### Completion boundary

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.

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] 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.

### Operating procedure

1. Capture the release scale and queue facts with their source IDs and confidence.
2. Define first response, progress update, and resolution as three different events.
3. 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.
4. Draft a cadence rule as a learner proposal and identify the service owner for approval.
5. Block the unsupported same-day restoration language and record recovery timing as not supplied.
6. Check that every statement cites F01, F03, F04, F09, or F10 and that no message is represented as sent.

### Field-by-field guidance — M01-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| 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. |

### Completed supported example — M01-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates supported evidence and truthful status; it is not a learner submission or proof of live work.

| Promise type | Supported definition or commitment | Evidence and source ID | Boundary or prohibited promise | Owner | Approval status | Gap or decision needed | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| First response and update cadence | Median first response is 7.2 hours against a four-business-hour target, and 36 open cases have waited more than twelve hours. | M01-I02 (F03); M01-I03 (F04) | First response is not resolution; no recovery date or universal restoration promise is supported. | Customer-service manager | Pending | Approve a proposed update cadence and escalation threshold for delayed cases. | Draft — review pending |

### Completed known-gap example — M01-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result.

| Promise type | Supported definition or commitment | Evidence and source ID | Boundary or prohibited promise | Owner | Approval status | Gap or decision needed | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Resolution boundary | Engineering reproduced schedule reset on one model and has no recovery estimate. | M01-I04 (F09); M01-I05 (F10) | The drafted same-day restoration promise is unsupported and must not be used. | Qualified engineering reviewer and customer-service manager | Not supplied | Approved holding language and the release gate for any future recovery estimate are not supplied. | Blocked — approval not supplied |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M01-A02 · Learner-proposed message examples** — Produce a bounded, reviewable learner-proposed message examples from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 3 rows from M01-I04, M01-I05 and address M01-EC02, M01-EC03. 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.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

No additional completed supporting-artifact row is supplied. Use the supporting artifact instructions, scoped inputs, completion checks, and known-gap method above; keep unsupported cells marked **not supplied**.

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **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. |

### Completion test

- [ ] All three promise types have operational definitions.
- [ ] F03/F04 performance facts and F09/F10 limitations are visible.
- [ ] Owner approval and sending status remain pending.

### Secondary evidence-trace crosswalk

The authored procedure and schema-exact examples above are the main teaching method. This compact crosswalk links the legacy starter and gap controls to the original packet.

#### Legacy worked-starter trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Input | Supported value | How to use it | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M01-A01 | M01-EC01 | M01-I01 (F01) | Firmware was released to 6,200 active devices on Monday. | State the supplied condition with its limitation and frame the decision that an authorized reviewer must make. Cite M01-I01 (F01) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed service-promise card or an operational result. |

#### Legacy known-gap trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M01-A02 | M01-EC02 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the learner-proposed message examples. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M01-EC02 or represent this artifact as complete. | Customer-service manager or qualified specialist | 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. | Open — not supplied |

### Decision prompt

**M01-I05:** 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?

### Artifact-build tables

### M01-A01 · Service-promise card

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable service-promise card from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M01-I01, M01-I02, M01-I03, M01-I04, M01-I05

**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.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M01-EC01:** Defines meaningful first response, update cadence, ownership, and the difference between response and resolution
- **M01-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

| Promise type | Supported definition or commitment | Evidence and source ID | Boundary or prohibited promise | Owner | Approval status | Gap or decision needed | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 01A01R-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 01A01R-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 01A01R-03 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### M01-A02 · Learner-proposed message examples

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable learner-proposed message examples from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M01-I04, M01-I05

**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.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M01-EC02:** Avoids unsupported recovery dates and universal promises
- **M01-EC03:** Uses respectful plain language while labeling all three examples as unapproved training drafts

| Draft ID | Audience and purpose | Supported facts | Proposed wording | Prohibited or unsupported claim | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| MESSAGE-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| MESSAGE-02 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| MESSAGE-03 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### Artifact coverage map

| Artifact | Expected rows | Mapped criteria | Scoped case-fact inputs |
|---|---:|---|---|
| M01-A01 · Service-promise card | 3 | M01-EC01, M01-EC04 | M01-I01, M01-I02, M01-I03, M01-I04, M01-I05 |
| M01-A02 · Learner-proposed message examples | 3 | M01-EC02, M01-EC03 | M01-I04, M01-I05 |

### Decision and revision record

| Decision or question | Supported observations with input IDs | Contradictory evidence | Learner proposal | Alternative | Evidence that would change the recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | |

### Evidence-criteria checklist

- [ ] **M01-EC01:** Defines meaningful first response, update cadence, ownership, and the difference between response and resolution
- [ ] **M01-EC02:** Avoids unsupported recovery dates and universal promises
- [ ] **M01-EC03:** Uses respectful plain language while labeling all three examples as unapproved training drafts
- [ ] **M01-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

### Self-review note

- What did I initially assume?
- Which input contradicted or weakened that assumption?
- What remains outside my role or authority?
- What will I revise before asking for human feedback?

## Module 2 — Tier verification

**Task mode:** bounded-case-starter

**Prompt:** Match verification strength and data collection to the risk of each requested action.

**Deliverable:** A verification decision table for six common request types.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M02-I01 | case-fact | F06 | Some agents request full birth dates for low-risk preference changes. | |
| M02-I02 | case-fact | F07 | Other agents change account email after verifying only a device nickname. | |
| M02-I03 | case-fact | F08 | One customer reports an urgent cold-home concern involving an elderly parent. | |
| M02-B01 | case-brief | CB01 | 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. | |
| M02-S01 | assignment-scope | F06, F07, F08 | 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. | |

### Completion boundary

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.

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] 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.

### Operating procedure

1. List six request classes as learner-proposed categories, including preference and account-email changes.
2. Assign impact and identity risk before choosing data collection.
3. Use F06 to reject excessive full-birth-date collection for low-risk preferences.
4. Use F07 to require stronger approved verification for account-email changes.
5. Add explicit failure, suspected-takeover, urgent/accessibility, and specialist-escalation paths.
6. Check that methods are marked proposed and no verification is represented as completed.

### Field-by-field guidance — M02-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| 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. |

### Completed supported example — M02-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates supported evidence and truthful status; it is not a learner submission or proof of live work.

| Request type | Impact | Minimum data | Approved verification | Failure path | Accessibility/safety escalation | Owner | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Low-risk preference change — M02-I01 (F06) | Some agents request full birth dates; the packet does not establish that this data is necessary. | Learner proposal — collect only the minimum approved attribute needed for the preference change. | Not supplied | Learner proposal — stop the change and route unresolved verification to an authorized owner. | Offer an approved accessible verification alternative; method not supplied. | Customer-service manager and privacy reviewer | Draft — policy review pending |

### Completed known-gap example — M02-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result.

| Request type | Impact | Minimum data | Approved verification | Failure path | Accessibility/safety escalation | Owner | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Account-email change — M02-I02 (F07) | Changing account identity after only a device nickname creates an account-takeover risk. | Not supplied | A stronger approved identity check is required, but its method is not supplied. | Learner proposal — stop the change and escalate suspected takeover. | Accessible alternative and urgent-escalation procedure are not supplied. | Identity/security owner | Blocked — approved method not supplied |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

This module has no separate supporting artifact; complete the principal artifact and its decision record.

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

No additional completed supporting-artifact row is supplied. Use the supporting artifact instructions, scoped inputs, completion checks, and known-gap method above; keep unsupported cells marked **not supplied**.

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **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. |

### Completion test

- [ ] All six request types have risk, minimum-data, failure, and escalation rules.
- [ ] No row claims a verification result.
- [ ] F06–F08 are cited where used.

### Secondary evidence-trace crosswalk

The authored procedure and schema-exact examples above are the main teaching method. This compact crosswalk links the legacy starter and gap controls to the original packet.

#### Legacy worked-starter trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Input | Supported value | How to use it | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M02-A01 | M02-EC01 | M02-I01 (F06) | Some agents request full birth dates for low-risk preference changes. | Place the supplied condition in the appropriate comparison row and leave every unsupplied requirement visibly open. Cite M02-I01 (F06) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed six-request verification decision table or an operational result. |

#### Legacy known-gap trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M02-A01 | M02-EC01 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the six-request verification decision table. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M02-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete. | Customer-service manager or qualified specialist | 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. | Open — not supplied |

### Decision prompt

**M02-I03:** 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?

### Artifact-build tables

### M02-A01 · Six-request verification decision table

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable six-request verification decision table from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M02-I01, M02-I02, M02-I03

**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.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M02-EC01:** Uses the minimum information needed for each action
- **M02-EC02:** Requires stronger approved verification for account-identity changes
- **M02-EC03:** Includes failure, suspected takeover, and accessibility escalation paths
- **M02-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

| Request type | Impact | Minimum data | Approved verification | Failure path | Accessibility/safety escalation | Owner | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| REQUEST-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| REQUEST-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| REQUEST-03 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| REQUEST-04 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| REQUEST-05 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| REQUEST-06 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### Artifact coverage map

| Artifact | Expected rows | Mapped criteria | Scoped case-fact inputs |
|---|---:|---|---|
| M02-A01 · Six-request verification decision table | 6 | M02-EC01, M02-EC02, M02-EC03, M02-EC04 | M02-I01, M02-I02, M02-I03 |

### Decision and revision record

| Decision or question | Supported observations with input IDs | Contradictory evidence | Learner proposal | Alternative | Evidence that would change the recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | |

### Evidence-criteria checklist

- [ ] **M02-EC01:** Uses the minimum information needed for each action
- [ ] **M02-EC02:** Requires stronger approved verification for account-identity changes
- [ ] **M02-EC03:** Includes failure, suspected takeover, and accessibility escalation paths
- [ ] **M02-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

### Self-review note

- What did I initially assume?
- Which input contradicted or weakened that assumption?
- What remains outside my role or authority?
- What will I revise before asking for human feedback?

## Module 3 — Diagnose without guessing

**Task mode:** bounded-case-starter

**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.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M03-I01 | case-fact | F02 | Support received 184 contacts across four recorded issue categories by Wednesday. | |
| M03-I02 | case-fact | F05 | The public reset article conflicts with engineering's instruction to preserve diagnostic logs. | |
| M03-I03 | case-fact | F08 | One customer reports an urgent cold-home concern involving an elderly parent. | |
| M03-I04 | case-fact | F09 | Engineering reproduced schedule reset on one model and has no recovery estimate. | |
| M03-B01 | case-brief | CB01 | 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. | |
| M03-S01 | assignment-scope | F02, F05, F08, F09 | 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. | |

### Completion boundary

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.

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] 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.

### Operating procedure

1. Start with observable symptom and urgency, not a diagnosis.
2. Capture device model, version, time, customer-observed symptom, and prior action as required fields.
3. Use F05 to stop reset guidance when evidence preservation applies.
4. Separate customer report F08 from engineering finding F09 and aggregate contact fact F02.
5. Route urgent safety language and technical diagnosis to qualified owners.
6. Quality-check every branch for a source ID, open question, owner, and truthful pending status.

### Field-by-field guidance — M03-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| 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. |

### Completed supported example — M03-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates supported evidence and truthful status; it is not a learner submission or proof of live work.

| Element | From or trigger | To or outcome | Evidence and source ID | Owner | Open question | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| TRIAGE-01 | Customer reports schedule reset | Preserve logs; request model, version, time, symptom, and prior-action fields before diagnosis. | F05, F09 | Qualified support and engineering reviewer | Record-level values and approved diagnostic action are not supplied. | Draft — review pending |

### Completed known-gap example — M03-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result.

| Element | From or trigger | To or outcome | Evidence and source ID | Owner | Open question | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| TRIAGE-02 | Urgent cold-home report | Pause diagnosis and route for authorized immediate-safety wording. | F08 | Qualified safety/service owner | Temperature, device state, timestamps, and approved safety language are not supplied. | Open — escalation required |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M03-A02 · Bounded triage-record starter** — Produce a bounded, reviewable bounded triage-record starter from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M03-I02 and address M03-EC02. 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.”
2. **M03-A03 · Triage evidence-gap register** — Produce a bounded, reviewable triage evidence-gap register from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M03-I03 and address M03-EC03. 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.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

No additional completed supporting-artifact row is supplied. Use the supporting artifact instructions, scoped inputs, completion checks, and known-gap method above; keep unsupported cells marked **not supplied**.

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **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. |

### Completion test

- [ ] Every branch distinguishes report, observation, and conclusion.
- [ ] Required diagnostic fields and preservation stop are explicit.
- [ ] No error code, diagnosis, or safety instruction is invented.

### Secondary evidence-trace crosswalk

The authored procedure and schema-exact examples above are the main teaching method. This compact crosswalk links the legacy starter and gap controls to the original packet.

#### Legacy worked-starter trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Input | Supported value | How to use it | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M03-A01 | M03-EC01 | M03-I01 (F02) | Support received 184 contacts across four recorded issue categories by Wednesday. | 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. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed issue-triage decision tree or an operational result. |

#### Legacy known-gap trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M03-A01 | M03-EC01 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the issue-triage decision tree. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M03-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete. | Customer-service manager or qualified specialist | 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. | Open — not supplied |

### Decision prompt

**M03-I02:** 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?

### Artifact-build tables

### M03-A01 · Issue-triage decision tree

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable issue-triage decision tree from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M03-I01, M03-I04, M03-I02, M03-I03

**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.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M03-EC01:** Provides fields for device model, version, time, observable symptom, and prior action while marking each unavailable record-level value not supplied

| Element | From or trigger | To or outcome | Evidence and source ID | Owner | Open question | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 03A01R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 03A01R-02 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 03A01R-03 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 03A01R-04 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 03A01R-05 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### M03-A02 · Bounded triage-record starter

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable bounded triage-record starter from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M03-I02

**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.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M03-EC02:** Stops the reset instruction when evidence-preservation rules apply

| Record ID | Supported facts | Source input ID | Decision or action pending | Owner or reviewer | Evidence needed | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 03A02R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 03A02R-02 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### M03-A03 · Triage evidence-gap register

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable triage evidence-gap register from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M03-I03

**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.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M03-EC03:** Separates the customer report, packet-level observation, and engineering conclusion without inventing an error code or diagnosis

| Entry ID | Issue or event | Evidence and source ID | Risk or impact | Owner | Bounded next step | Review point | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 03A03R-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 03A03R-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### Artifact coverage map

| Artifact | Expected rows | Mapped criteria | Scoped case-fact inputs |
|---|---:|---|---|
| M03-A01 · Issue-triage decision tree | 5 | M03-EC01 | M03-I01, M03-I04, M03-I02, M03-I03 |
| M03-A02 · Bounded triage-record starter | 2 | M03-EC02 | M03-I02 |
| M03-A03 · Triage evidence-gap register | 2 | M03-EC03 | M03-I03 |

### Decision and revision record

| Decision or question | Supported observations with input IDs | Contradictory evidence | Learner proposal | Alternative | Evidence that would change the recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | |

### Evidence-criteria checklist

- [ ] **M03-EC01:** Provides fields for device model, version, time, observable symptom, and prior action while marking each unavailable record-level value not supplied
- [ ] **M03-EC02:** Stops the reset instruction when evidence-preservation rules apply
- [ ] **M03-EC03:** Separates the customer report, packet-level observation, and engineering conclusion without inventing an error code or diagnosis

### Self-review note

- What did I initially assume?
- Which input contradicted or weakened that assumption?
- What remains outside my role or authority?
- What will I revise before asking for human feedback?

## Module 4 — Repair notes and knowledge

**Task mode:** bounded-case-starter

**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.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M04-I01 | case-fact | F05 | The public reset article conflicts with engineering's instruction to preserve diagnostic logs. | |
| M04-I02 | case-fact | F09 | Engineering reproduced schedule reset on one model and has no recovery estimate. | |
| M04-I03 | case-fact | F11 | Case notes often omit observations, attempted steps, result, owner, and next action. | |
| M04-B01 | case-brief | CB01 | 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. | |
| M04-S01 | assignment-scope | F05, F09, F11 | 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. | |

### Completion boundary

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.

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] 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.

### Operating procedure

1. Turn the five missing note elements in F11 into separate observable checks.
2. Evaluate observation, attempted steps, result, owner, and next action independently.
3. Use F05 to flag the conflicting reset article and evidence-preservation requirement.
4. Use F09 only as an engineering finding with no recovery estimate.
5. Route article authority/effective-version decisions to engineering and the knowledge owner.
6. Confirm audit results describe packet evidence, not a reviewed live note.

### Field-by-field guidance — M04-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| 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. |

### Completed supported example — M04-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates supported evidence and truthful status; it is not a learner submission or proof of live work.

| Check ID | Control or check | Evidence required | Source input ID | Owner | Result | Exception or gap | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| NOTE-OBS | Check that observable symptoms are recorded. | F11 states case notes often omit observations. | F11 | Service quality reviewer | Aggregate issue supplied in F11; row-level result pending. | Individual note sample not supplied. | Draft audit — review pending |

### Completed known-gap example — M04-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result.

| Check ID | Control or check | Evidence required | Source input ID | Owner | Result | Exception or gap | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| KB-AUTH | Check reset guidance against engineering preservation instruction. | F05 identifies a conflict. | F05 | Knowledge owner and engineering reviewer | Pending | Approved replacement wording, version, and effective date not supplied. | Open — publication blocked |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M04-A02 · Corrected starter note** — Produce a bounded, reviewable corrected starter note from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 1 row from M04-I02 and address M04-EC01. 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.”
2. **M04-A03 · Blank case-note template** — Produce a bounded, reviewable blank case-note template from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 1 row from M04-I02 and address M04-EC03. 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.”
3. **M04-A04 · Knowledge-base change record** — Produce a bounded, reviewable knowledge-base change record from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 1 row from M04-I01 and address M04-EC02, M04-EC04. 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.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

No additional completed supporting-artifact row is supplied. Use the supporting artifact instructions, scoped inputs, completion checks, and known-gap method above; keep unsupported cells marked **not supplied**.

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **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. |

### Completion test

- [ ] Five note-quality checks are separately inspectable.
- [ ] F05/F09/F11 roles are not conflated.
- [ ] No individual note audit or article approval is claimed.

### Secondary evidence-trace crosswalk

The authored procedure and schema-exact examples above are the main teaching method. This compact crosswalk links the legacy starter and gap controls to the original packet.

#### Legacy worked-starter trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Input | Supported value | How to use it | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M04-A01 | M04-EC01 | M04-I03 (F11) | Case notes often omit observations, attempted steps, result, owner, and next action. | 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. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed case-note quality audit or an operational result. |

#### Legacy known-gap trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M04-A01 | M04-EC01 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the case-note quality audit. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M04-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete. | Customer-service manager or qualified specialist | 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. | Open — not supplied |

### Decision prompt

**M04-I01:** 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?

### Artifact-build tables

### M04-A01 · Case-note quality audit

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable case-note quality audit from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M04-I03, M04-I01

**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.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M04-EC01:** The worked starter note captures only supplied facts, approved-step gaps, observed outcome, owner gap, and next-action gap

| Check ID | Control or check | Evidence required | Source input ID | Owner | Result | Exception or gap | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 04A01R-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 04A01R-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 04A01R-03 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 04A01R-04 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 04A01R-05 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### M04-A02 · Corrected starter note

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable corrected starter note from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M04-I02

**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.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M04-EC01:** The worked starter note captures only supplied facts, approved-step gaps, observed outcome, owner gap, and next-action gap

| Record ID | Supported facts | Source input ID | Decision or action pending | Owner or reviewer | Evidence needed | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 04A02R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### M04-A03 · Blank case-note template

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable blank case-note template from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M04-I02

**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.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M04-EC03:** Defines how obsolete reset guidance would be contained while authorized review remains pending

| Section or field | Purpose | Supported entry | Source input ID | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 04A03R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### M04-A04 · Knowledge-base change record

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable knowledge-base change record from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M04-I01

**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.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M04-EC02:** Links the proposed article change to engineering authority and a future effective version without claiming approval
- **M04-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

| Record ID | Supported facts | Source input ID | Decision or action pending | Owner or reviewer | Evidence needed | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 04A04R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### Artifact coverage map

| Artifact | Expected rows | Mapped criteria | Scoped case-fact inputs |
|---|---:|---|---|
| M04-A01 · Case-note quality audit | 5 | M04-EC01 | M04-I03, M04-I01 |
| M04-A02 · Corrected starter note | 1 | M04-EC01 | M04-I02 |
| M04-A03 · Blank case-note template | 1 | M04-EC03 | M04-I02 |
| M04-A04 · Knowledge-base change record | 1 | M04-EC02, M04-EC04 | M04-I01 |

### Decision and revision record

| Decision or question | Supported observations with input IDs | Contradictory evidence | Learner proposal | Alternative | Evidence that would change the recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | |

### Evidence-criteria checklist

- [ ] **M04-EC01:** The worked starter note captures only supplied facts, approved-step gaps, observed outcome, owner gap, and next-action gap
- [ ] **M04-EC02:** Links the proposed article change to engineering authority and a future effective version without claiming approval
- [ ] **M04-EC03:** Defines how obsolete reset guidance would be contained while authorized review remains pending
- [ ] **M04-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

### Self-review note

- What did I initially assume?
- Which input contradicted or weakened that assumption?
- What remains outside my role or authority?
- What will I revise before asking for human feedback?

## Module 5 — Escalate risk and emotion

**Task mode:** bounded-case-starter

**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.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M05-I01 | case-fact | F08 | One customer reports an urgent cold-home concern involving an elderly parent. | |
| M05-I02 | case-fact | F09 | Engineering reproduced schedule reset on one model and has no recovery estimate. | |
| M05-I03 | case-fact | F10 | A team lead drafted an unsupported same-day restoration promise. | |
| M05-B01 | case-brief | CB01 | 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. | |
| M05-S01 | assignment-scope | F08, F09, F10 | 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. | |

### Completion boundary

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.

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] 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.

### Operating procedure

1. Open with respectful acknowledgment of the reported urgency.
2. Restate only the customer report in F08 and do not confirm the underlying condition.
3. Add a visible placeholder for authorized immediate-safety wording.
4. Use F09 to avoid a recovery estimate and F10 to prohibit the same-day promise.
5. Name the qualified escalation route and decision requested without claiming handoff.
6. Review for diagnosis, safety instruction, promise, or completion language before approval.

### Field-by-field guidance — M05-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| 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. |

### Completed supported example — M05-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates supported evidence and truthful status; it is not a learner submission or proof of live work.

| Draft ID | Audience and purpose | Supported facts | Proposed wording | Prohibited or unsupported claim | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| MSG-URGENT-01 | Customer holding response for urgent cold-home report | Customer reports an urgent cold-home concern involving an elderly parent (F08); engineering has no recovery estimate (F09). | We understand the urgency. We are routing this for qualified review; approved immediate-safety wording is not supplied in this exercise. | Diagnosis, same-day restoration, and unsupplied safety instruction. | Service manager and qualified specialist | Unapproved training draft |

### Completed known-gap example — M05-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result.

| Draft ID | Audience and purpose | Supported facts | Proposed wording | Prohibited or unsupported claim | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| MSG-RECOVERY-02 | Recovery-time update | No recovery estimate is supplied (F09). | Recovery timing remains pending qualified review. | Same-day restoration promise in F10. | Engineering/service owner | Open — not supplied |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M05-A02 · Urgent-escalation record** — Produce a bounded, reviewable urgent-escalation record from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 1 row from M05-I02 and address M05-EC02. 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.”
2. **M05-A03 · Manager decision request** — Produce a bounded, reviewable manager decision request from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 1 row from M05-I03 and address M05-EC03. 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.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

No additional completed supporting-artifact row is supplied. Use the supporting artifact instructions, scoped inputs, completion checks, and known-gap method above; keep unsupported cells marked **not supplied**.

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **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. |

### Completion test

- [ ] Draft contains acknowledgment, fact boundary, owner route, and decision request.
- [ ] F08–F10 limitations are explicit.
- [ ] Sent/approved/escalated status remains false or pending.

### Secondary evidence-trace crosswalk

The authored procedure and schema-exact examples above are the main teaching method. This compact crosswalk links the legacy starter and gap controls to the original packet.

#### Legacy worked-starter trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Input | Supported value | How to use it | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M05-A01 | M05-EC01 | M05-I01 (F08) | One customer reports an urgent cold-home concern involving an elderly parent. | Translate the supplied condition into bounded draft language while excluding unsupported promises, outcomes, or approvals. Cite M05-I01 (F08) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed de-escalation script draft or an operational result. |

#### Legacy known-gap trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M05-A03 | M05-EC03 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the manager decision request. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M05-EC03 or represent this artifact as complete. | Customer-service manager or qualified specialist | 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. | Open — not supplied |

### Decision prompt

**M05-I03:** 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?

### Artifact-build tables

### M05-A01 · De-escalation script draft

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable de-escalation script draft from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M05-I01, M05-I02, M05-I03

**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.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M05-EC01:** Acknowledges concern without confirming unknown conditions
- **M05-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

| Draft ID | Audience and purpose | Supported facts | Proposed wording | Prohibited or unsupported claim | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 05A01R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### M05-A02 · Urgent-escalation record

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable urgent-escalation record from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M05-I02

**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.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M05-EC02:** Requests and leaves a placeholder for authorized immediate safety direction while routing to qualified escalation; it does not diagnose or issue unsupplied instructions

| Record ID | Supported facts | Source input ID | Decision or action pending | Owner or reviewer | Evidence needed | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 05A02R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### M05-A03 · Manager decision request

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable manager decision request from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M05-I03

**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.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M05-EC03:** States supplied facts, uncertainty, urgency, owner field, and decision needed without claiming an escalation occurred

| Decision | Evidence for | Evidence against | Options and tradeoffs | Decision owner | Required approval | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 05A03R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### Artifact coverage map

| Artifact | Expected rows | Mapped criteria | Scoped case-fact inputs |
|---|---:|---|---|
| M05-A01 · De-escalation script draft | 1 | M05-EC01, M05-EC04 | M05-I01, M05-I02, M05-I03 |
| M05-A02 · Urgent-escalation record | 1 | M05-EC02 | M05-I02 |
| M05-A03 · Manager decision request | 1 | M05-EC03 | M05-I03 |

### Decision and revision record

| Decision or question | Supported observations with input IDs | Contradictory evidence | Learner proposal | Alternative | Evidence that would change the recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | |

### Evidence-criteria checklist

- [ ] **M05-EC01:** Acknowledges concern without confirming unknown conditions
- [ ] **M05-EC02:** Requests and leaves a placeholder for authorized immediate safety direction while routing to qualified escalation; it does not diagnose or issue unsupplied instructions
- [ ] **M05-EC03:** States supplied facts, uncertainty, urgency, owner field, and decision needed without claiming an escalation occurred
- [ ] **M05-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

### Self-review note

- What did I initially assume?
- Which input contradicted or weakened that assumption?
- What remains outside my role or authority?
- What will I revise before asking for human feedback?

## Module 6 — Build quality feedback

**Task mode:** bounded-case-starter

**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.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M06-I01 | case-fact | F01 | Firmware was released to 6,200 active devices on Monday. | |
| M06-I02 | case-fact | F02 | Support received 184 contacts across four recorded issue categories by Wednesday. | |
| M06-I03 | case-fact | F03 | The median first response is 7.2 hours against a four-business-hour target. | |
| M06-I04 | case-fact | F04 | Thirty-six open cases have waited longer than twelve hours. | |
| M06-I05 | case-fact | F11 | Case notes often omit observations, attempted steps, result, owner, and next action. | |
| M06-I06 | case-fact | F12 | Quality sampling covers only complaints and averages privacy failures into total scores. | |
| M06-B01 | case-brief | CB01 | 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. | |
| M06-S01 | assignment-scope | F01, F02, F03, F04, F11, F12 | 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. | |

### Completion boundary

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.

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] 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.

### Operating procedure

1. Define the review population and four issue categories from F02.
2. Create a representative sampling stratum plus targeted review for privacy, security, safety, and honesty risk.
3. Use F12 to separate critical failures from average scoring.
4. Define provisional sample size, cadence, and escalation threshold for authorized approval.
5. Connect findings to coaching, knowledge repair, retest, and trend review.
6. Check that no sample selection, review result, or coaching action is represented as completed.

### Field-by-field guidance — M06-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| 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. |

### Completed supported example — M06-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates supported evidence and truthful status; it is not a learner submission or proof of live work.

| Step or milestone | Trigger or date | Evidence and source ID | Owner | Gate or threshold | Dependency or gap | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| SAMPLE-01 | Before weekly quality review | F02: 184 contacts across four categories; F12: sampling is complaint-only and averages privacy failures. | Quality owner | Learner proposal: representative category sample plus 100% review of defined critical-risk cases. | Contact-level sampling frame and approved threshold not supplied. | Draft — approval pending |

### Completed known-gap example — M06-A01

**Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result.

| Step or milestone | Trigger or date | Evidence and source ID | Owner | Gate or threshold | Dependency or gap | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| SAMPLE-02 | Before selecting records | F11 reports common note omissions. | Service QA reviewer | Gate: sampling frame and access authorization must be approved. | Record list, reviewers, and privacy handling are not supplied. | Blocked — not supplied |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M06-A02 · Service quality scorecard** — Produce a bounded, reviewable service quality scorecard from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M06-I02, M06-I06 and address M06-EC02. 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.”
2. **M06-A03 · Calibration exercise** — Produce a bounded, reviewable calibration exercise from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M06-I03 and address M06-EC03. 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.”
3. **M06-A04 · Coaching log** — Produce a bounded, reviewable coaching log from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M06-I04 and address M06-EC03, M06-EC04. 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.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

No additional completed supporting-artifact row is supplied. Use the supporting artifact instructions, scoped inputs, completion checks, and known-gap method above; keep unsupported cells marked **not supplied**.

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **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. |

### Completion test

- [ ] Population, strata, cadence, owner, and provisional gate are present.
- [ ] Critical failures are separate from average score.
- [ ] Execution and results remain pending.

### Secondary evidence-trace crosswalk

The authored procedure and schema-exact examples above are the main teaching method. This compact crosswalk links the legacy starter and gap controls to the original packet.

#### Legacy worked-starter trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Input | Supported value | How to use it | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M06-A01 | M06-EC01 | M06-I01 (F01) | Firmware was released to 6,200 active devices on Monday. | 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. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed quality sampling plan or an operational result. |

#### Legacy known-gap trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M06-A01 | M06-EC01 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the quality sampling plan. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M06-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete. | Customer-service manager or qualified specialist | 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. | Open — not supplied |

### Decision prompt

**M06-I05:** 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?

### Artifact-build tables

### M06-A01 · Quality sampling plan

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable quality sampling plan from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M06-I01, M06-I05, M06-I02, M06-I06

**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.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M06-EC01:** Uses representative sampling plus targeted risk review

| Step or milestone | Trigger or date | Evidence and source ID | Owner | Gate or threshold | Dependency or gap | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 06A01R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A01R-02 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A01R-03 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A01R-04 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A01R-05 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A01R-06 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### M06-A02 · Service quality scorecard

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable service quality scorecard from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M06-I02, M06-I06

**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.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M06-EC02:** Defines privacy, security, safety, and honesty critical failures separately

| Metric | Definition | Evidence source | Provisional threshold | Owner | Review cadence | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 06A02R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A02R-02 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### M06-A03 · Calibration exercise

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable calibration exercise from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M06-I03

**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.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M06-EC03:** Connects findings to coaching, knowledge repair, retest, and trend monitoring

| Row ID | Subject | Supported observation | Source input ID | Analysis or learner proposal | Not-supplied gap | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 06A03R-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A03R-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### M06-A04 · Coaching log

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable coaching log from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M06-I04

**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.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M06-EC03:** Connects findings to coaching, knowledge repair, retest, and trend monitoring
- **M06-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

| Entry ID | Issue or event | Evidence and source ID | Risk or impact | Owner | Bounded next step | Review point | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 06A04R-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A04R-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### Artifact coverage map

| Artifact | Expected rows | Mapped criteria | Scoped case-fact inputs |
|---|---:|---|---|
| M06-A01 · Quality sampling plan | 6 | M06-EC01 | M06-I01, M06-I05, M06-I02, M06-I06 |
| M06-A02 · Service quality scorecard | 2 | M06-EC02 | M06-I02, M06-I06 |
| M06-A03 · Calibration exercise | 2 | M06-EC03 | M06-I03 |
| M06-A04 · Coaching log | 2 | M06-EC03, M06-EC04 | M06-I04 |

### Decision and revision record

| Decision or question | Supported observations with input IDs | Contradictory evidence | Learner proposal | Alternative | Evidence that would change the recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | |

### Evidence-criteria checklist

- [ ] **M06-EC01:** Uses representative sampling plus targeted risk review
- [ ] **M06-EC02:** Defines privacy, security, safety, and honesty critical failures separately
- [ ] **M06-EC03:** Connects findings to coaching, knowledge repair, retest, and trend monitoring
- [ ] **M06-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

### Self-review note

- What did I initially assume?
- Which input contradicted or weakened that assumption?
- What remains outside my role or authority?
- What will I revise before asking for human feedback?

## Final packet review

- [ ] Every material statement cites an input ID.
- [ ] Every omitted record is marked **not supplied**.
- [ ] Every designed control or template is marked **learner proposal**.
- [ ] Every mapped criterion is addressed in its artifact or a named gap.
- [ ] Contracted row counts and row IDs remain intact.
- [ ] Specialist and decision-owner handoffs are explicit.
- [ ] No simulated work is represented as a completed real-world action, approval, test, signature, or professional opinion.