# NorthStar distributed team charter — evidence-and-artifact workbook **Case packet version:** 2026.08.31-practice-3 **Case brief record:** CB01 This is a fictional, sanitized cross-border management case. People, locations, compensation, records, and events are fabricated; the exercise is not employment, labor, immigration, tax, benefits, or classification advice. ## 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 — Replace assumptions with review **Task mode:** bounded-case-starter **Prompt:** Identify headquarters assumptions, country-specific unknowns, affected people, and management boundaries. **Deliverable:** A cross-border risk and specialist-question register with country-specific professional review, decisions, and results pending. ### Supplied-input register | Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it | |---|---|---|---|---| | M01-I01 | case-fact | F01 | The planned team includes nine workers across Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. | | | M01-I02 | case-fact | F02 | Headquarters requests ten hours of Mountain Time coverage each business day. | | | M01-I03 | case-fact | F04 | All roles are labeled contractors despite materially different working arrangements. | | | M01-I04 | case-fact | F05 | No qualified country-specific classification review is documented. | | | M01-I05 | case-fact | F12 | Country-specific working time, leave, payroll, benefits, data, and termination rules remain unresolved. | | | 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, F02, F04, F05, F12 | Build a starter version of “A cross-border risk and specialist-question register with country-specific professional review, decisions, and results pending.” 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, F04, F05, 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, F02, F04, F05, and F12; distinguish supplied operating facts from unknown country-specific legal, payroll, benefits, data, working-time, safety, and termination requirements. - [ ] STOP “Replace assumptions with review” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F01, F02, F04, F05, and F12; distinguish supplied operating facts from unknown country-specific legal, payroll, benefits, data, working-time, safety, and termination requirements. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized people/operations owner, with qualified local employment, payroll, privacy, safety, or language review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result. ### Operating procedure 1. Record the nine-worker, three-country plan and ten-hour Mountain-Time coverage request as operating facts, not cultural or legal conclusions. 2. Create separate country-question entries for classification, work time, pay, benefits, data, safety, leave, and termination. 3. Record the universal contractor label as a risk trigger because working arrangements materially differ; do not reclassify anyone. 4. Separate cultural hypotheses from individual facts and qualified local-law questions; prohibit country stereotypes. 5. Assign each unresolved country question to an authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer with a bounded evidence request. 6. Final-QC evidence/source, bounded impact, owner, next step, review point, status, and no compliance or classification conclusion. ### Field-by-field guidance — M01-A01 | Field | What high-quality completion requires | |---|---| | Entry ID | Entry ID: Assign one stable identifier that remains unchanged across review, correction, escalation, and closure records. No “Replace assumptions with review” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing record identity. Do not encode an approval, result, owner identity, or live-system value inside the identifier. Review: the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Country or topic | Identify the country and risk theme this register row covers—classification, working time, leave, payroll, benefits, privacy, safety, or termination—and cite M01-I01 (F01) or M01-I04 (F05). If worker city, actual arrangement, or jurisdiction-specific issue is not supplied, state that gap. Never infer a legal rule from the country name or contractor label. Keep pending for the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Supported fact | Transcribe the smallest decision-relevant fact supported by the cited module input and preserve its supplied confidence or uncertainty for Supported fact. Evidence: M01-I01 (F01), M01-I03 (F04), M01-I02 (F02); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not convert a report, allegation, estimate, or provisional statement into a verified fact. Escalate to the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Source input ID | Source input ID: List the exact module input ID beside every material statement, adding its fact ID when present. Cite M01-I01 (F01), M01-I03 (F04), M01-I02 (F02); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing citation trace. Do not cite the case brief as approval or cite an input that does not support the statement. Review: the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Fact, hypothesis, or legal question | Label the entry explicitly: supplied fact from M01-I01 (F01), M01-I03 (F04), or another cited input; learner hypothesis that names confirming/refuting evidence; or question reserved for country-qualified employment, payroll, privacy, or safety review. Mark worker-specific facts not supplied when absent. Never present a hypothesis or open legal question as a determination. Keep pending for the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Bounded risk | Label each statement as observed fact, bounded impact, or learner hypothesis and describe the evidence that could confirm or refute it for Bounded risk. Evidence: M01-I03 (F04), M01-I05 (F12); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not state causation, legal effect, product impact, blame, or affected scope from incomplete evidence. Escalate to the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Qualified review needed | Name the specific jurisdiction and discipline required to answer the open question—country-qualified employment, payroll, benefits, privacy, safety, or termination review—and specify the worker facts the reviewer needs. Use M01-I04 (F05) to preserve disagreement or uncertainty; mark the actual reviewer and conclusion not supplied. Do not substitute general HR experience for country-qualified analysis. Review: the people owner and the named local specialist. | | Owner | For Owner, name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied. Cite M01-I04 (F05); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing decision authority. Never invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Keep pending for the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Evidence request | State the exact absent record, decision, method, value, or authority; explain why it matters and the bounded next request for Evidence request. Evidence: M01-I02 (F02); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not hide the gap in narrative, fill it with a placeholder value, or imply the request was answered. Escalate to the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Decision gate | Decision gate: Write a stop/go/escalate rule with its prerequisite, authorized decision role, evidence gate, and pending outcome. Cite M01-I04 (F05); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing decision gate. Do not execute the control, commit funds, release work, or claim a decision occurred in this exercise. Review: the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Status | For Status, select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required. No “Replace assumptions with review” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing state control. Never mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Keep pending for the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | ### 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. | Entry ID | Country or topic | Supported fact | Source input ID | Fact, hypothesis, or legal question | Bounded risk | Qualified review needed | Owner | Evidence request | Decision gate | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | M01-A01-EX-01 | Worker classification and working-condition review across Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. | Planned team has nine workers across three countries; all roles are labeled contractors despite materially different arrangements (M01-I01, F01; M01-I03, F04). | M01-I01 (F01); M01-I03 (F04); M01-I02 (F02); M01-I04 (F05); M01-I05 (F12) | Fact: labels and differing arrangements are supplied. Qualified legal/payroll question: what classification, working-time, leave, benefits, payroll, data, and termination rules apply to each actual arrangement? | Misclassification or inconsistent treatment may exist, but no jurisdiction-specific conclusion is made from country or label alone. | Country-qualified employment/payroll/privacy review using worker-specific facts; no reviewer or conclusion is supplied. | People/operations owner coordinates the register; country-qualified employment/payroll reviewer decides classification and compensation questions; privacy or safety specialists review only their respective topics. Specific assignments and decisions remain pending unless documented. | For each role: worker location, entity relationship, duties, control/independence facts, schedule, equipment, pay/benefits, duration, leave, data access, and termination terms. | Do not finalize classification, contract, schedule, payroll, benefits, or termination approach until qualified review and authorized people-owner decisions are documented. | Draft — cited evidence recorded; authorized review pending | ### Completed known-gap example — M01-A01 **Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result. | Entry ID | Country or topic | Supported fact | Source input ID | Fact, hypothesis, or legal question | Bounded risk | Qualified review needed | Owner | Evidence request | Decision gate | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | M01-A01-GAP-01 | Three countries named; worker-specific city/location and arrangement facts not supplied. | Team/label facts supplied; no jurisdictional determination supplied. | M01-I05 (F12); M01-I04 (F05); M01-I02 (F02); M01-I03 (F04); M01-I01 (F01) | Legal questions remain open for each arrangement. | Potential exposure only; magnitude and applicability not supplied. | Not supplied — country-qualified reviewer and written analysis. | Not supplied — identify the people/operations owner and the country-qualified employment, payroll, privacy, or safety reviewer required by this specific row. | Worker-specific role/control/pay/schedule/benefit/data/termination facts absent. | Blocked — no classification or operating-model approval. | Blocked — required evidence or authorized decision not supplied | ### Supporting artifact build sequence 1. **M01-A02 · Country-specific specialist-question register** — Produce a bounded, reviewable country-specific specialist-question register from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M01-I02, 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 #### M01-A02 · Country-specific specialist-question register **Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work. **Criterion demonstrated:** M01-EC02 **Why this row is included:** Makes every requested risk category visible for all three countries without pretending the same answer applies in each jurisdiction. | Entry ID | Issue or event | Evidence and source ID | Risk or impact | Owner | Bounded next step | Review point | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | M01-A02-M01-EC02-EX01 | Lists classification, work-time, pay, benefits, data, safety, and termination questions by country | Completed fictional learner example. Supplied evidence — M01-I02: Headquarters requests ten hours of Mountain Time coverage each business day. \| M01-I04: No qualified country-specific classification review is documented. \| M01-I05: Country-specific working time, leave, payroll, benefits, data, and termination rules remain unresolved. Applied control — Makes every requested risk category visible for all three countries without pretending the same answer applies in each jurisdiction. \| Source input IDs: M01-I02; M01-I04; M01-I05 | Makes every requested risk category visible for all three countries without pretending the same answer applies in each jurisdiction. Risk remains bounded by the stated evidence gap and pending authority. | Owner: Authorized headquarters people/operations owner coordinating qualified local reviewers | Learner-applied control: Makes every requested risk category visible for all three countries without pretending the same answer applies in each jurisdiction. Record the evidence gap, route it to the authorized role, and leave execution and approval pending. | Review only when the named evidence and authorized disposition are available. Current state: Open — country-specific facts and reviews not supplied | Open — country-specific facts and reviews not supplied | #### M01-A01 · Cross-border risk register **Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work. **Criterion demonstrated:** M01-EC03 **Why this row is included:** Explicitly forbids country stereotypes and converts uncertainty into a qualified, fact-specific review route rather than a made-up legal conclusion. | Entry ID | Country or topic | Supported fact | Source input ID | Fact, hypothesis, or legal question | Bounded risk | Qualified review needed | Owner | Evidence request | Decision gate | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | NO-STEREOTYPE-REVIEW-GATE-01 | Evidence-based cross-border review standard | The planned team spans Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina, and no qualified country-specific classification review is documented. | M01-I01 (F01); M01-I04 (F04) | Assess each actual role, working arrangement, location, schedule, and data flow; do not infer behavior, communication style, legal status, or performance from nationality or country. | Stereotypes and unverified legal assumptions can distort people decisions and compliance routing. | Qualified local review based on current law and the actual worker facts; review result not supplied | Authorized people/operations owner and qualified local specialists | Worker-specific arrangement facts and dated specialist advice for each jurisdiction; not supplied | No classification or people-policy decision until evidence and qualified review are documented; no review claimed complete. | Blocked — evidence-based local review pending | ### Stop / Go / Escalate | Decision | Rule | |---|---| | **Stop** | Stop classification, schedule, payroll, benefits, data, safety, leave, or termination claims when country-qualified evidence and authority are absent. | | **Go** | Proceed to risk review when each supplied fact and unknown has a source, bounded consequence, owner, and specialist question. | | **Escalate** | Escalate country-law, payroll, benefits, data, safety, and employment-status questions to qualified local specialists. | ### Completion test - [ ] All three countries and the headquarters coverage request are represented without stereotypes. - [ ] Classification and country-rule unknowns are topic-specific. - [ ] No legal compliance, employment status, or completed review 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 | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | M01-A01 | M01-EC01 | M01-I01 (F01) | The planned team includes nine workers across Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. | Open a traceable register entry for the supplied condition and route the unresolved decision to the named authorized role. Cite M01-I01 (F01) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed cross-border risk register or an operational result. | #### Legacy known-gap trace | Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | M01-A01 | M01-EC01 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the cross-border risk register. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M01-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete. | Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer | Record the missing evidence in M01-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 **M01-I05:** What bounded decision can the Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer make from M01-I05, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied? ### Artifact-build tables ### M01-A01 · Cross-border risk register **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable cross-border risk register from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. **Scoped case-fact inputs:** M01-I01, M01-I03, M01-I02, 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:** Separates cultural hypotheses from legal or individual facts - **M01-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them - **M01-EC03:** Avoids country stereotypes and identifies the qualified local review needed without claiming it was obtained | Entry ID | Country or topic | Supported fact | Source input ID | Fact, hypothesis, or legal question | Bounded risk | Qualified review needed | Owner | Evidence request | Decision gate | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 01A01R-01 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-02 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-03 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-04 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-05 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-06 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-07 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-08 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-09 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-10 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-11 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-12 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-13 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-14 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-15 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-16 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-17 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-18 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-19 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-20 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-21 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-22 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-23 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A01R-24 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | **Completion checks** - [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M01-I01, 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 Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied. ### M01-A02 · Country-specific specialist-question register **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable country-specific specialist-question register from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. **Scoped case-fact inputs:** M01-I02, 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:** Lists classification, work-time, pay, benefits, data, safety, and termination questions by country - **M01-EC03:** Avoids country stereotypes and identifies the qualified local review needed without claiming it was obtained | Entry ID | Issue or event | Evidence and source ID | Risk or impact | Owner | Bounded next step | Review point | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 01A02R-01 | | | | | | | Not started | | 01A02R-02 | | | | | | | Not started | **Completion checks** - [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M01-I02, 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 Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer 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 · Cross-border risk register | 24 | M01-EC01, M01-EC04, M01-EC03 | M01-I01, M01-I03, M01-I02, M01-I04, M01-I05 | | M01-A02 · Country-specific specialist-question register | 2 | M01-EC02, M01-EC03 | M01-I02, 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:** Separates cultural hypotheses from legal or individual facts - [ ] **M01-EC02:** Lists classification, work-time, pay, benefits, data, safety, and termination questions by country - [ ] **M01-EC03:** Avoids country stereotypes and identifies the qualified local review needed without claiming it was obtained - [ ] **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 — Define roles and authority **Task mode:** bounded-case-starter **Prompt:** Turn own customer success into observable outcomes, decision rights, service expectations, and escalation paths. **Deliverable:** A role charter and decision-rights matrix. ### Supplied-input register | Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it | |---|---|---|---|---| | M02-I01 | case-fact | F01 | The planned team includes nine workers across Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. | | | M02-I02 | case-fact | F04 | All roles are labeled contractors despite materially different working arrangements. | | | M02-I03 | case-fact | F06 | The role description lacks decision rights for refunds, changes, commitments, and incidents. | | | M02-I04 | case-fact | F12 | Country-specific working time, leave, payroll, benefits, data, and termination rules remain unresolved. | | | 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 | F01, F04, F06, F12 | Build a starter version of “A role charter and decision-rights matrix.” 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, F04, F06, 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, F06, and F12; treat role classification and country-rule dependencies as unresolved and do not expand decision rights silently. - [ ] STOP “Define roles and authority” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F01, F04, F06, and F12; treat role classification and country-rule dependencies as unresolved and do not expand decision rights silently. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized people/operations owner, with qualified local employment, payroll, privacy, safety, or language review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result. ### Operating procedure 1. Define the role’s observable customer-success outcomes without assuming employment status or authority. 2. Create separate decision-right entries for refunds, account changes, external commitments, claims, privacy, and incidents. 3. Specify what the role may prepare, recommend, execute, refuse, and escalate; every commitment requires an authorized owner. 4. Record contractor labeling and unresolved country rules as dependencies, not settled classifications. 5. Route each decision-right and country dependency to the authorized people manager and qualified local/specialist reviewer. 6. Final-QC outcome, scope, authority, evidence, reviewer, status, and no employment or policy approval claim. ### Field-by-field guidance — M02-A01 | Field | What high-quality completion requires | |---|---| | Charter section | Name the specific decision-rights section being defined—refund, change, commercial commitment, incident, or country-status dependency—and connect it to M02-I03 (F06) or M02-I04 (F12). If an approved charter section is not supplied, label it a learner-proposed structure. Do not imply that drafting a section grants authority. Review: the people/operations owner, business decision owner, and country-qualified reviewer where required. | | Outcome | State the reviewable result of the charter row: preparation, recommendation, execution, approval, escalation, and evidence-retention boundaries are separated for one decision type. Use M02-I03 (F06) to show the current authority gap; mark approval and operational results not supplied. Never state that the exercise grants a refund, change, commitment, or incident authority. Keep pending for the people/operations and affected business owners. | | Supported evidence | Transcribe the smallest decision-relevant fact supported by the cited module input and preserve its supplied confidence or uncertainty for Supported evidence. Evidence: M02-I01 (F01), M02-I03 (F06), M02-I04 (F12); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not convert a report, allegation, estimate, or provisional statement into a verified fact. Escalate to the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Source input ID | Source input ID: List the exact module input ID beside every material statement, adding its fact ID when present. Cite M02-I01 (F01), M02-I03 (F06), M02-I04 (F12); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing citation trace. Do not cite the case brief as approval or cite an input that does not support the statement. Review: the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | In-scope preparation | List the specific materials the role may prepare without deciding: case facts, options, evidence links, draft customer or internal language, and an escalation packet. M02-I03 (F06) confirms decision rights are missing; mark approved preparation scope not supplied when absent. Never convert preparation into permission to refund, change, commit, or close an incident. Keep pending for the people/operations owner and relevant business owner. | | Execution authority | Record the specific decision type, limit, system action, and delegated role that may execute it, or state not supplied. M02-I03 (F06) confirms authority for refunds, changes, commitments, and incidents is absent; M02-I04 (F12) preserves country dependencies. Do not infer authority from title, access, or past practice. Escalate to the business decision owner and country-qualified reviewer where employment status affects the action. | | Prohibited decision | Prohibited decision: Write a stop/go/escalate rule with its prerequisite, authorized decision role, evidence gate, and pending outcome. Cite M02-I03 (F06); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing decision gate. Do not execute the control, commit funds, release work, or claim a decision occurred in this exercise. Review: the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Decision owner | For Decision owner, name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied. Cite M02-I03 (F06); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing decision authority. Never invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Keep pending for the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Country or status dependency | Select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required for Country or status dependency. Evidence: M02-I01 (F01), M02-I04 (F12); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Escalate to the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Escalation trigger | Define the observable condition that stops execution and names the next owner: request beyond documented authority, conflicting instructions, sensitive incident, commercial commitment, or country-specific employment decision. Use M02-I03 (F06) and M02-I04 (F12); mark the approved route, response time, and evidence requirement not supplied. Do not turn a trigger into permission or claim escalation occurred. Review: the people/operations and affected decision owners. | | Status | For Status, select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required. No “Define roles and authority” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing state control. Never mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Keep pending for the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | ### 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. | Charter section | Outcome | Supported evidence | Source input ID | In-scope preparation | Execution authority | Prohibited decision | Decision owner | Country or status dependency | Escalation trigger | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Refund, change, commercial-commitment, and incident decision rights. | A reviewable role charter that separates preparation, recommendation, execution, approval, escalation, and evidence retention; no live authority is granted by this exercise. | M02-I01 (F01) records “The planned team includes nine workers across Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina.”; M02-I03 (F06) records “The role description lacks decision rights for refunds, changes, commitments, and incidents.”; M02-I04 (F12) records “Country-specific working time, leave, payroll, benefits, data, and termination rules remain unresolved.”. Preserve this as the supplied observation with its source and confidence; add no unstated conclusion. | M02-I01 (F01); M02-I03 (F06); M02-I04 (F12); M02-I02 (F04) | Prepare case facts, options, draft customer/internal language, and evidence packets within approved systems; route decisions to the designated owner. | Not supplied — no role may issue refunds, approve changes, make commitments, or close incidents solely from the current role description (M02-I03, F06). | Do not promise/authorize refunds, product or process changes, commercial commitments, incident closure, or country-specific employment treatment without delegated authority. | Authorized business owner for refunds/commitments, change owner for changes, incident owner for incidents, and qualified country reviewer for employment-status dependencies; names are not supplied. | Country-specific working time, leave, payroll, benefits, data, and termination rules remain unresolved (M02-I04, F12). | Escalate any request beyond documented authority, conflicting instructions, sensitive incident, or country-specific decision before execution. | Draft — cited evidence recorded; authorized review pending | ### Completed known-gap example — M02-A01 **Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result. | Charter section | Outcome | Supported evidence | Source input ID | In-scope preparation | Execution authority | Prohibited decision | Decision owner | Country or status dependency | Escalation trigger | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Role-charter approval and controlled version not supplied. | No approved decision-rights map or operating result supplied. | M02-I02 (F04) records “All roles are labeled contractors despite materially different working arrangements.”; M02-I04 (F12) records “Country-specific working time, leave, payroll, benefits, data, and termination rules remain unresolved.”; M02-I03 (F06) records “The role description lacks decision rights for refunds, changes, commitments, and incidents.”. Additional support is not supplied — the exact evidence needed to support any additional claim for “Supported evidence”; do not infer the absent fact. | M02-I02 (F04); M02-I04 (F12); M02-I03 (F06); M02-I01 (F01) | Not supplied — role-by-role preparation boundary. | Unknown for refunds, changes, commitments, and incidents. | Boundary requires authorized policy; current list is learner-proposed and pending review. | Not supplied — delegated roles and limits. | Open — country-qualified analysis absent. | Not approved — triggers, route, response time, and evidence requirement missing. | Blocked — required evidence or authorized decision not supplied | ### Supporting artifact build sequence 1. **M02-A02 · Decision-rights matrix** — Produce a bounded, reviewable decision-rights matrix from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M02-I02 and address M02-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.” ### Completed supporting-artifact examples #### M02-A02 · Decision-rights matrix **Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work. **Criterion demonstrated:** M02-EC02 **Why this row is included:** Names all five decision-owner categories and sharply separates useful preparation from execution authority. | Item ID | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Criterion or required state | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | M02-A02-M02-EC02-EX01 | Completed fictional learner example. Supplied evidence — M02-I02: All roles are labeled contractors despite materially different working arrangements. Applied control — Names all five decision-owner categories and sharply separates useful preparation from execution authority. | M02-I02 | Names refund, account, claim, privacy, and incident decision owners | Execution authority: Refund owner; account/security owner; claims/contract owner; privacy/data owner; incident owner — exact titles, thresholds, and delegates not supplied. \| Country or status dependency: Worker status and country-specific authority/handling constraints require qualified review; results not supplied. \| Status: Draft — role assignments and delegations pending approval | Execution authority: Refund owner; account/security owner; claims/contract owner; privacy/data owner; incident owner — exact titles, thresholds, and delegates not supplied. \| Decision owner: Authorized headquarters control owner must name role, threshold, backup, and escalation for each decision class. | Draft — role assignments and delegations pending approval | ### Stop / Go / Escalate | Decision | Rule | |---|---| | **Stop** | Stop role release or action beyond delegated authority when decision rights, classification, or country-specific dependencies are unresolved. | | **Go** | Proceed to charter review when outcomes, in-scope actions, prohibited actions, escalation triggers, and owners are observable. | | **Escalate** | Escalate refunds, commitments, claims, privacy, and incidents to designated owners and status/country questions to qualified reviewers. | ### Completion test - [ ] Outcomes and decision rights are distinct and observable. - [ ] Country/status dependencies remain open and cited. - [ ] No authority, employment classification, legal compliance, or approval 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 | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | M02-A01 | M02-EC01 | M02-I01 (F01) | The planned team includes nine workers across Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. | State the supplied condition with its limitation and frame the decision that an authorized reviewer must make. Cite M02-I01 (F01) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed role charter or an operational result. | #### Legacy known-gap trace | Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | M02-A02 | M02-EC02 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the decision-rights matrix. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M02-EC02 or represent this artifact as complete. | Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer | Record the missing evidence in M02-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 **M02-I04:** What bounded decision can the Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer make from M02-I04, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied? ### Artifact-build tables ### M02-A01 · Role charter **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable role charter from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. **Scoped case-fact inputs:** M02-I01, M02-I03, M02-I04, M02-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** - **M02-EC01:** Defines outcomes without expanding authority silently - **M02-EC03:** Marks country-review and employment-status dependencies - **M02-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them | Charter section | Outcome | Supported evidence | Source input ID | In-scope preparation | Execution authority | Prohibited decision | Decision owner | Country or status dependency | Escalation trigger | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 02A01R-01 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 02A01R-02 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 02A01R-03 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 02A01R-04 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 02A01R-05 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 02A01R-06 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 02A01R-07 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 02A01R-08 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 02A01R-09 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 02A01R-10 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | **Completion checks** - [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M02-I01, M02-I03, M02-I04). - [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M02-EC01, 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 Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied. ### M02-A02 · Decision-rights matrix **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable decision-rights matrix from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. **Scoped case-fact inputs:** M02-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** - **M02-EC02:** Names refund, account, claim, privacy, and incident decision owners | Item ID | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Criterion or required state | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 02A02R-01 | | | | | | Not started | | 02A02R-02 | | | | | | Not started | **Completion checks** - [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M02-I02). - [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M02-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 Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer 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 · Role charter | 10 | M02-EC01, M02-EC03, M02-EC04 | M02-I01, M02-I03, M02-I04, M02-I02 | | M02-A02 · Decision-rights matrix | 2 | M02-EC02 | M02-I02 | ### 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:** Defines outcomes without expanding authority silently - [ ] **M02-EC02:** Names refund, account, claim, privacy, and incident decision owners - [ ] **M02-EC03:** Marks country-review and employment-status dependencies - [ ] **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 — Control bilingual meaning **Task mode:** bounded-case-starter **Prompt:** Create one versioned source of truth and accessible ways to confirm decisions in English and Spanish. **Deliverable:** A bilingual communication standard, glossary, and sample decision summary. ### Supplied-input register | Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it | |---|---|---|---|---| | M03-I01 | case-fact | F07 | Operating procedures exist in two languages and in conflicting versions. | | | M03-I02 | case-fact | F08 | Two team members requested written action summaries after English-language calls. | | | 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 | F07, F08 | Build a starter version of “A bilingual communication standard, glossary, and sample decision summary.” 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, 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 F07 and F08; preserve the existence of conflicting bilingual procedures and the request for written action summaries without inferring language competence or performance. - [ ] STOP “Control bilingual meaning” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F07 and F08; preserve the existence of conflicting bilingual procedures and the request for written action summaries without inferring language competence or performance. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized people/operations owner, with qualified local employment, payroll, privacy, safety, or language review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result. ### Operating procedure 1. Record conflicting English/Spanish procedure versions as a document-control problem, not a language-performance judgment. 2. Define one authoritative source/version, translation owner, review status, correction route, and controlled-distribution method as learner proposals. 3. Require written action summaries after decision calls as an operating control available to all relevant team members. 4. Create protected-term and ambiguity fields for the controlled glossary; do not declare one dialect universally superior. 5. Separate language support, comprehension confirmation, and job performance evidence. 6. Route legal, safety, technical, HR, or policy-sensitive wording to qualified language and subject reviewers. 7. Final-QC source IDs, version status, inclusive access, reviewer boundary, and no published standard or competence conclusion. ### Field-by-field guidance — M03-A01 | Field | What high-quality completion requires | |---|---| | Standard section | Standard section: Name the bilingual operating-standard section—source control, meeting follow-up, protected terminology, correction, review, or performance separation—that this row governs. No “Control bilingual meaning” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing standard-section scope. Do not combine unrelated language, performance, and distribution controls in one vague section. Review: the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Supported issue | For Supported issue, transcribe the smallest decision-relevant fact supported by the cited module input and preserve its supplied confidence or uncertainty. Cite M03-I01 (F07), M03-I02 (F08); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing bounded evidence. Never convert a report, allegation, estimate, or provisional statement into a verified fact. Keep pending for the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Source input ID | List the exact module input ID beside every material statement, adding its fact ID when present for Source input ID. Evidence: M03-I01 (F07), M03-I02 (F08); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not cite the case brief as approval or cite an input that does not support the statement. Escalate to the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Authoritative source or version | Authoritative source or version: Identify the controlled record, location, version, date, and module citation that governs this entry. Cite M03-I01 (F07); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing controlled provenance. Do not treat an undated draft, copied text, or secondary summary as the controlling record. Review: the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Translation or language owner | For Translation or language owner, name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied. Cite M03-I02 (F08), M03-I01 (F07); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing decision authority. Never invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Keep pending for qualified language and subject reviewers. | | Written follow-up control | Write a stop/go/escalate rule with its prerequisite, authorized decision role, evidence gate, and pending outcome for Written follow-up control. Evidence: M03-I02 (F08); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not execute the control, commit funds, release work, or claim a decision occurred in this exercise. Escalate to the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Protected term or meaning | Protected term or meaning: Preserve the controlled meaning, audience, context, conditions, and authority across languages and identify both language and subject review. Cite M03-I02 (F08), M03-I01 (F07); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing meaning control. Do not translate ambiguity into certainty or let bilingual ability substitute for legal, safety, warranty, or technical authority. Review: qualified language and subject reviewers. | | Correction or distribution route | For Correction or distribution route, define where a meaning conflict is corrected, which linked copies receive the correction, who confirms distribution, and how superseded text is prevented from reuse. No “Control bilingual meaning” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing controlled correction route. Never silently edit one language version or assume that sending a correction proves every recipient received and adopted it. Keep pending for the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Qualified reviewers | Name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied for Qualified reviewers. Evidence: no direct “Control bilingual meaning” source fact; mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Escalate to the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Performance-separation rule | State the specific language-related characteristics that must remain outside performance scoring—accent, fluency beyond role need, or a request for written follow-up—and name the job-outcome evidence that may be used instead. M03-I02 (F08) supports the written-summary request; mark approved performance policy not supplied. Do not infer capability from language preference. Review: the people owner, qualified language reviewer, and performance-policy owner. | | Status | For Status, select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required. Cite M03-I01 (F07), M03-I02 (F08); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing state control. Never mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Keep pending for the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | ### 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. | Standard section | Supported issue | Source input ID | Authoritative source or version | Translation or language owner | Written follow-up control | Protected term or meaning | Correction or distribution route | Qualified reviewers | Performance-separation rule | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Controlled source/version, written meeting follow-up, protected terminology, correction distribution, qualified review, and performance separation. | Operating procedures exist in two languages and conflicting versions; two team members request written action summaries after English-language calls (M03-I01, F07; M03-I02, F08). | M03-I01 (F07); M03-I02 (F08) | Not supplied — identify one controlled source owner, version, effective date, and superseded-copy rule before translation or operational reliance. | Qualified language owner plus source-content owner; specific roles/names and approval are not supplied. | Learner proposal — after each decision call, send a bilingual or reviewer-checked written summary of decision, owner, date, open question, and source version; no distribution is claimed. | Decision authority, safety/technical conditions, dates/times, amounts, obligations, and status must remain equivalent across languages; exact glossary is not supplied. | Proposed: preserve conflicting originals → source owner resolves meaning → qualified reviewer checks both languages → release owner distributes correction → recipient confirmation remains pending. | Source-content owner resolves intended meaning; a qualified bilingual language reviewer checks equivalence; a subject-matter owner reviews protected legal, safety, technical, or commercial terms; the release owner controls distribution. Assignments and decisions remain pending unless documented. | Do not use accent, fluency, or preference for written follow-up as a performance proxy; evaluate job outcomes against role-relevant evidence. | Draft — cited evidence recorded; authorized review pending | ### Completed known-gap example — M03-A01 **Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result. | Standard section | Supported issue | Source input ID | Authoritative source or version | Translation or language owner | Written follow-up control | Protected term or meaning | Correction or distribution route | Qualified reviewers | Performance-separation rule | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Standard structure proposed; approval/version not supplied. | Conflicting versions and written-summary request supplied; impact/outcome not supplied. | M03-I02 (F08); M03-I01 (F07) | Missing controlled source, version, effective date, and owner. | Not supplied — qualified reviewer roles and authority. | Not implemented — approved format/channel/owner missing. | Not supplied — controlled terminology and source meanings. | Not supplied — recipients, approval, evidence, and confirmation. | Not supplied — identify the source-content, qualified language, subject-matter, and release owners before correction or distribution. | Pending people-owner review; no employee evaluation is performed. | Blocked — required evidence or authorized decision not supplied | ### Supporting artifact build sequence 1. **M03-A02 · Controlled team glossary** — Produce a bounded, reviewable controlled team glossary 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 · Sample decision summary** — Produce a bounded, reviewable sample decision summary from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 1 row from M03-I01 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 #### M03-A02 · Controlled team glossary **Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work. **Criterion demonstrated:** M03-EC02 **Why this row is included:** Defines the complete controlled-language lifecycle without inventing an authoritative version or treating bilingual fluency as approval authority. | Term or field | Definition | Allowed values or rule | Evidence source | Owner | Change trigger | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Controlled team glossary controlled field for M03-EC02 | Defines the complete controlled-language lifecycle without inventing an authoritative version or treating bilingual fluency as approval authority. Count only evidence-backed eligible records; preserve exceptions and unresolved dependencies. | Use supplied evidence, “not supplied,” “learner proposal,” or “pending authorized review.” Never upgrade uncertainty into approval or performance. | M03-I02 | Translation or language owner: Qualified translation/language owner field pending assignment; bilingual ability alone does not confer approval authority. \| Qualified reviewers: Authorized subject/process reviewer and qualified language reviewer | Re-review when the controlled source, evidence, owner, jurisdiction, audience, or approval status changes. Current gap: Execution evidence, authorized review, approval, and operational results are not supplied; this is a learner proposal only. | Blocked — authoritative version and correction approval pending | #### M03-A03 · Sample decision summary **Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work. **Criterion demonstrated:** M03-EC03 **Why this row is included:** Provides actionable language support while explicitly excluding the support request itself from performance judgment. | Section | Supported statement | Source input ID | Assumption or gap | Decision requested | Reviewer | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Sample decision summary — M03-EC03 | Completed fictional learner example. Supplied evidence — M03-I01: Operating procedures exist in two languages and in conflicting versions. Applied control — Provides actionable language support while explicitly excluding the support request itself from performance judgment. | M03-I01 | Authoritative source or version: The approved meeting record/process is not supplied; written summaries remain proposed support, not a new authoritative policy. \| Translation or language owner: Authorized language-support owner not supplied \| Written follow-up control: Learner proposal: issue accessible written action summaries with owner, action, date/time zone, questions, correction route, and controlled-record status. \| Status: Learner proposal — support and evaluation controls pending approval | Separates language support from performance judgment. Learner-applied control: Provides actionable language support while explicitly excluding the support request itself from performance judgment. Record the evidence gap, route it to the authorized role, and leave execution and approval pending. | Translation or language owner: Authorized language-support owner not supplied \| Qualified reviewers: Authorized source/process owner and qualified language reviewer | Learner proposal — support and evaluation controls pending approval | ### Stop / Go / Escalate | Decision | Rule | |---|---| | **Stop** | Stop release of conflicting procedures or high-risk translated content when authority, version, or qualified review is unresolved. | | **Go** | Proceed to review when source-of-truth, version, owner, correction path, written follow-up, and protected-term controls are explicit. | | **Escalate** | Escalate legal, technical, safety, HR, or policy-sensitive meaning to qualified language and subject reviewers. | ### Completion test - [ ] Version control and written follow-up are operating controls, not competence judgments. - [ ] F07/F08 remain separately cited. - [ ] No procedure publication, translation approval, employee assessment, or distribution 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 | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | M03-A01 | M03-EC01 | M03-I01 (F07) | Operating procedures exist in two languages and in conflicting versions. | State the supplied condition with its limitation and frame the decision that an authorized reviewer must make. Cite M03-I01 (F07) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed bilingual communication standard or an operational result. | #### Legacy known-gap trace | Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | M03-A02 | M03-EC02 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the controlled team glossary. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M03-EC02 or represent this artifact as complete. | Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer | Record the missing evidence in M03-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 **M03-I01:** What bounded decision can the Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer make from M03-I01, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied? ### Artifact-build tables ### M03-A01 · Bilingual communication standard **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable bilingual communication standard from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. **Scoped case-fact inputs:** M03-I01, 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-EC01:** Treats written follow-up as an operating control rather than a competence deficit - **M03-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them | Standard section | Supported issue | Source input ID | Authoritative source or version | Translation or language owner | Written follow-up control | Protected term or meaning | Correction or distribution route | Qualified reviewers | Performance-separation rule | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 03A01R-01 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 03A01R-02 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 03A01R-03 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 03A01R-04 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 03A01R-05 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 03A01R-06 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 03A01R-07 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 03A01R-08 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 03A01R-09 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | **Completion checks** - [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M03-I01). - [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M03-EC01, M03-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 Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied. ### M03-A02 · Controlled team glossary **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable controlled team glossary 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:** Defines authoritative version, translation owner, correction route, and protected terms | Term or field | Definition | Allowed values or rule | Evidence source | Owner | Change trigger | 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 Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied. ### M03-A03 · Sample decision summary **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable sample decision summary from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. **Scoped case-fact inputs:** M03-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** - **M03-EC03:** Separates language support from performance judgment | Section | Supported statement | Source input ID | Assumption or gap | Decision requested | Reviewer | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 03A03R-01 | | | | | | Not started | **Completion checks** - [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M03-I01). - [ ] 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 Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer 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 · Bilingual communication standard | 9 | M03-EC01, M03-EC04 | M03-I01, M03-I02 | | M03-A02 · Controlled team glossary | 2 | M03-EC02 | M03-I02 | | M03-A03 · Sample decision summary | 1 | M03-EC03 | M03-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 - [ ] **M03-EC01:** Treats written follow-up as an operating control rather than a competence deficit - [ ] **M03-EC02:** Defines authoritative version, translation owner, correction route, and protected terms - [ ] **M03-EC03:** Separates language support from performance judgment - [ ] **M03-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 4 — Design a fair rhythm **Task mode:** bounded-case-starter **Prompt:** Meet coverage needs while distributing time-zone burden and using asynchronous work intentionally. **Deliverable:** A four-week schedule starter, meeting-burden matrix, asynchronous handoff template, and gap log for exact work locations, dates, holidays, and working-time review. ### Supplied-input register | Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it | |---|---|---|---|---| | M04-I01 | case-fact | F01 | The planned team includes nine workers across Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. | | | M04-I02 | case-fact | F02 | Headquarters requests ten hours of Mountain Time coverage each business day. | | | M04-I03 | case-fact | F03 | The recurring late Mountain meeting burdens several local time zones. | | | M04-I04 | case-fact | F12 | Country-specific working time, leave, payroll, benefits, data, and termination rules remain unresolved. | | | 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 | F01, F02, F03, F12 | Build a starter version of “A four-week schedule starter, meeting-burden matrix, asynchronous handoff template, and gap log for exact work locations, dates, holidays, and working-time 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, F02, F03, 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, F02, F03, and F12; record that worker locations/cities, dates, daylight-saving effects, holidays, availability, workload, leave, and country-qualified working-time rules are not supplied. - [ ] STOP “Design a fair rhythm” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F01, F02, F03, and F12; record that worker locations/cities, dates, daylight-saving effects, holidays, availability, workload, leave, and country-qualified working-time rules are not supplied. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized people/operations owner, with qualified local employment, payroll, privacy, safety, or language review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result. ### Operating procedure 1. Create four schedule rows labeled WEEK-01 through WEEK-04; do not invent calendar dates. 2. Record the nine-worker, three-country team, ten-hour Mountain-Time coverage request, and recurring late-meeting burden with source IDs. 3. Define a learner-proposed burden-rotation method and asynchronous handoff pattern without assigning individuals or claiming compliance. 4. Require location/date/holiday/daylight-saving, availability, workload, leave, and country-rule evidence before final time commitments. 5. Add written context, response expectations, and approved-recording questions to the review gate rather than assuming recording is permitted. 6. Route coverage and burden tradeoffs to the people manager and working-time/privacy questions to country-qualified owners. 7. Final-QC all four weeks for evidence, owner, dependency, gate, exception, and pending status. ### Field-by-field guidance — M04-A01 | Field | What high-quality completion requires | |---|---| | Week | Use the stable identifiers WEEK-01 through WEEK-04 and add a distinct planning purpose—constraint baseline, burden review, handoff design, or cycle review. M04-I02 (F02) and M04-I03 (F03) support the shared coverage and burden context; calendar dates remain not supplied. Do not encode an invented date, assignment, approval, or result in the identifier. Review: the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Coverage deliverable | Record the supplied ten-hour Mountain Time daily coverage request from M04-I02 (F02), then state the distinct planning purpose for that week. Mark covered functions, calendar dates, IANA zones, workload, and staffing not supplied. Never calculate local times or assign workers without date, location, availability, leave, and qualified working-time evidence. Keep the proposed coverage row pending for the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Supported evidence | Transcribe the smallest decision-relevant fact supported by the cited module input and preserve its supplied confidence or uncertainty for Supported evidence. Evidence: M04-I01 (F01), M04-I02 (F02), M04-I03 (F03); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not convert a report, allegation, estimate, or provisional statement into a verified fact. Escalate to the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Source input ID | Source input ID: List the exact module input ID beside every material statement, adding its fact ID when present. Cite M04-I01 (F01), M04-I02 (F02), M04-I03 (F03); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing citation trace. Do not cite the case brief as approval or cite an input that does not support the statement. Review: the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Proposed burden rotation | Describe a learner-proposed method for sharing unavoidable early or late work and reviewing burden over WEEK-01 through WEEK-04. Use M04-I03 (F03) as the supplied burden trigger and M04-I04 (F12) for unresolved country rules; mark worker-level data not supplied. Never assign a person or claim fairness/compliance without dates, locations, availability, leave, workload, and qualified review. Keep pending for the people owner. | | Asynchronous handoff | Define the handoff contents—completed work, evidence links, open risks, next owner, decision needed, due time, and response expectation—and the approved schedule system still required. M04-I03 (F03) supports exploring an alternative to recurring late meetings; actual handoffs, timing, recording permission, and results are not supplied. Do not claim the protocol was used. Escalate to the people owner and country-qualified privacy reviewer. | | Location, date, holiday, or DST dependency | Location, date, holiday, or DST dependency: State the exact absent record, decision, method, value, or authority; explain why it matters and the bounded next request. Cite M04-I02 (F02), M04-I03 (F03); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing gap discipline. Do not hide the gap in narrative, fill it with a placeholder value, or imply the request was answered. Review: the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Working-time or privacy review | Name the country-qualified reviewer and the exact schedule or privacy question: working-time limits, rest, leave/holiday, worker location and date, IANA zone, recording permission, access, retention, notice, or alternative. M04-I04 (F12) confirms country rules are unresolved; decisions remain not supplied. Never state compliance or permission from a country-level assumption. Keep pending for people/operations and qualified employment/privacy reviewers. | | Review gate | Write a stop/go/escalate rule with its prerequisite, authorized decision role, evidence gate, and pending outcome for Review gate. Evidence: no direct “Design a fair rhythm” source fact; mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not execute the control, commit funds, release work, or claim a decision occurred in this exercise. Escalate to the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Exception | Record the recurring late Mountain meeting from M04-I03 (F03) as an open burden exception, then identify the affected workers, exact dates/times, feasible alternatives, owner, duration, mitigation, and disposition that are not supplied. Do not call the exception approved, necessary, fair, or resolved without those records. Keep the schedule blocked where the exception affects assignment. Review: the people owner and country-qualified working-time/privacy reviewer. | | Status | For Status, select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required. No “Design a fair rhythm” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing state control. Never mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Keep pending for the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | ### 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. | Week | Coverage deliverable | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Proposed burden rotation | Asynchronous handoff | Location, date, holiday, or DST dependency | Working-time or privacy review | Review gate | Exception | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | WEEK-01 — constraint baseline; calendar dates are not supplied, so no local-time conversion or worker assignment is made. | Ten hours of Mountain Time coverage each business day is requested (M04-I02, F02); exact covered functions, dates, and staffing are not supplied. | M04-I01 (F01) records “The planned team includes nine workers across Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina.”; M04-I02 (F02) records “Headquarters requests ten hours of Mountain Time coverage each business day.”; M04-I03 (F03) records “The recurring late Mountain meeting burdens several local time zones.”. Preserve this as the supplied observation with its source and confidence; add no unstated conclusion. | M04-I01 (F01); M04-I02 (F02); M04-I03 (F03); M04-I04 (F12) | Learner proposal — rotate any unavoidable early/late burden and review it weekly, but assign no worker until location, date, availability, leave/holiday, and country-qualified working-time review are supplied. | Learner proposal — use a written handoff with completed work, evidence links, open risks, next owner, decision needed, and due time; exact handoff times remain pending. | Worker cities, schedule dates, IANA zones, daylight-saving effects, local holidays, leave, and availability are not supplied; no date-specific conversion is calculated. | Country-specific working-time and privacy rules remain unresolved (M04-I04, F12); qualified review is required before schedule approval. | Do not publish or assign the four-week schedule until people/operations and country-qualified reviewers confirm worker-specific availability, fair burden, working-time, holiday/leave, and privacy constraints. | Open exception — the recurring late Mountain meeting burdens several local time zones (M04-I03, F03); affected workers, exact dates/times, feasible alternatives, and authorized disposition are not supplied. | Draft — cited evidence recorded; authorized review pending | ### Completed known-gap example — M04-A01 **Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result. | Week | Coverage deliverable | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Proposed burden rotation | Asynchronous handoff | Location, date, holiday, or DST dependency | Working-time or privacy review | Review gate | Exception | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | WEEK-01 through WEEK-04 are not calendarized — the exact four-week window is not supplied. | Request supplied; function-level demand, service hours, workload, and success evidence not supplied. | M04-I04 (F12) records “Country-specific working time, leave, payroll, benefits, data, and termination rules remain unresolved.”; M04-I03 (F03) records “The recurring late Mountain meeting burdens several local time zones.”; M04-I02 (F02) records “Headquarters requests ten hours of Mountain Time coverage each business day.”. Additional support is not supplied — the exact evidence needed to support any additional claim for “Supported evidence”; do not infer the absent fact. | M04-I04 (F12); M04-I03 (F03); M04-I02 (F02); M04-I01 (F01) | Proposal only — worker availability and qualified review missing. | Not supplied — approved handoff content, system, owners, and timing. | Missing cities/dates/zones/DST/holidays/leave; conversion blocked. | Not supplied — country-qualified written review. | Not met; no schedule is approved or assigned. | Not supplied — approved exception, affected-worker evidence, mitigation, owner, duration, and review decision. | Blocked — required evidence or authorized decision not supplied | ### Supporting artifact build sequence 1. **M04-A02 · Meeting-burden matrix** — Produce a bounded, reviewable meeting-burden matrix from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M04-I03 and address M04-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. **M04-A03 · Asynchronous handoff template** — Produce a bounded, reviewable asynchronous handoff template from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M04-I03 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 · Location-date-holiday gap log** — Produce a bounded, reviewable location-date-holiday gap log from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M04-I02, M04-I04 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.” ### Completed supporting-artifact examples #### M04-A01 · Four-week schedule **Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work. **Criterion demonstrated:** M04-EC02 **Why this row is included:** WEEK-02 demonstrates a distinct burden-review purpose while preserving all missing worker, date, and country-rule evidence. | Week | Coverage deliverable | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Proposed burden rotation | Asynchronous handoff | Location, date, holiday, or DST dependency | Working-time or privacy review | Review gate | Exception | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | WEEK-02 — burden evidence review; calendar dates and worker assignments remain not supplied. | The same ten-hour Mountain Time daily request from M04-I02 (F02) remains the planning constraint; this row reviews burden evidence rather than assigning coverage. | M04-I02 (F02) supplies the coverage request and M04-I03 (F03) supplies the recurring late-meeting burden; no worker-level burden count or schedule outcome is supplied. | M04-I02 (F02); M04-I03 (F03); M04-I04 (F12) | Learner proposal — compare early/late burden by worker only after locations, dates, availability, leave, workload, and valid working-time rules are supplied; no person is assigned. | Learner proposal — review whether the WEEK-01 handoff fields would reduce required overlap; no handoff record, use, or result is claimed. | Worker cities, calendar dates, IANA zones, daylight-saving effects, holidays, leave, workload, and availability remain not supplied. | Country-qualified working-time and privacy questions remain open under M04-I04 (F12); reviewer assignment and written disposition are not supplied. | Do not select or rotate workers until people/operations and country-qualified reviewers approve the evidence set and proposed burden method. | The recurring late meeting remains an open exception under M04-I03 (F03); affected workers, alternatives, mitigation, owner, and disposition are not supplied. | Draft — WEEK-02 review purpose modeled; evidence and authorization pending | #### M04-A01 · Four-week schedule **Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work. **Criterion demonstrated:** M04-EC02 **Why this row is included:** WEEK-03 demonstrates a distinct asynchronous-handoff design purpose without claiming rollout, recording permission, or schedule compliance. | Week | Coverage deliverable | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Proposed burden rotation | Asynchronous handoff | Location, date, holiday, or DST dependency | Working-time or privacy review | Review gate | Exception | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | WEEK-03 — asynchronous handoff design; calendar dates and worker assignments remain not supplied. | The ten-hour Mountain Time daily request from M04-I02 (F02) remains unchanged; this row explores an asynchronous handoff that could reduce overlap, subject to approval. | M04-I03 (F03) supplies the recurring late-meeting burden; no approved handoff system, response expectation, recording permission, or reduced-burden result is supplied. | M04-I02 (F02); M04-I03 (F03); M04-I04 (F12) | Learner proposal — preserve the unassigned rotation method while evaluating whether approved asynchronous work could reduce unavoidable early/late coverage; no outcome is claimed. | Learner proposal — include completed work, evidence links, open risks, next owner, decision needed, due time, response expectation, and an approved-recording question; no live handoff occurs. | Date-specific overlap and response windows cannot be set because worker cities, dates, zones, DST, holidays, leave, and availability are not supplied. | Qualified reviewers must decide working-time limits and whether recording is permitted, who may access it, retention, notice or consent, and alternatives; answers are not supplied. | Do not publish the handoff protocol or change coverage until the people owner, system/privacy owner, and country-qualified reviewers approve the method and evidence controls. | Open — the approved handoff system, response-time rule, recording disposition, alternative channel, and accessibility needs are not supplied. | Draft — WEEK-03 handoff design modeled; implementation and review pending | #### M04-A01 · Four-week schedule **Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work. **Criterion demonstrated:** M04-EC02 **Why this row is included:** WEEK-04 demonstrates a distinct cycle-review and next-window decision gate without inventing metrics, outcomes, or approvals. | Week | Coverage deliverable | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Proposed burden rotation | Asynchronous handoff | Location, date, holiday, or DST dependency | Working-time or privacy review | Review gate | Exception | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | WEEK-04 — cycle review and next-window decision; calendar dates and worker assignments remain not supplied. | The ten-hour Mountain Time daily request from M04-I02 (F02) remains the unapproved planning constraint; this row prepares a decision packet for the next four-week window. | M04-I03 (F03) preserves the late-meeting burden and M04-I04 (F12) preserves unresolved country rules; no four-week performance, burden, or compliance result is supplied. | M04-I02 (F02); M04-I03 (F03); M04-I04 (F12) | Learner proposal — compare documented burden, exceptions, coverage gaps, and approved accommodations before proposing the next window; the required records and decision are not supplied. | Learner proposal — summarize unresolved handoff controls, response expectations, evidence gaps, and decision owners for review; no adoption or effectiveness result is claimed. | The next-window review still requires worker cities, dates, IANA zones, DST, holidays, leave, workload, availability, and verified local-time conversions. | People/operations and country-qualified employment/privacy reviewers must document any schedule, recording, retention, or accommodation decision; no disposition is supplied. | Do not roll the proposed pattern into another window until evidence, exception dispositions, working-time/privacy review, and accountable owner approval are documented. | Open — the recurring late meeting has no supplied affected-worker list, approved alternative, mitigation owner, duration, or closure decision. | Draft — WEEK-04 decision gate modeled; results and approval pending | #### M04-A04 · Location-date-holiday gap log **Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work. **Criterion demonstrated:** M04-EC01 **Why this row is included:** Shows every supplied coverage fact and every missing date/location dependency, preventing false precision in cross-border scheduling. | Entry ID | Issue or event | Evidence and source ID | Risk or impact | Owner | Bounded next step | Review point | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | M04-A04-M04-EC01-EX01 | Shows the supplied countries and headquarters coverage request while marking city, date, daylight-saving, holiday, and worker-specific data not supplied | Completed fictional learner example. Supplied evidence — M04-I02: Headquarters requests ten hours of Mountain Time coverage each business day. \| M04-I04: Country-specific working time, leave, payroll, benefits, data, and termination rules remain unresolved. Applied control — Shows every supplied coverage fact and every missing date/location dependency, preventing false precision in cross-border scheduling. \| Source input IDs: M04-I02; M04-I04 | Shows every supplied coverage fact and every missing date/location dependency, preventing false precision in cross-border scheduling. Risk remains bounded by the stated evidence gap and pending authority. | Authorized owner/reviewer is not supplied; route to the role named by the controlled process. | Learner-applied control: Shows every supplied coverage fact and every missing date/location dependency, preventing false precision in cross-border scheduling. Record the evidence gap, route it to the authorized role, and leave execution and approval pending. | Review only when the named evidence and authorized disposition are available. Current state: Blocked — schedule inputs and reviews pending | Blocked — schedule inputs and reviews pending | #### M04-A03 · Asynchronous handoff template **Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work. **Criterion demonstrated:** M04-EC03 **Why this row is included:** Defines a useful asynchronous protocol and the exact recording/response questions that must be answered before rollout. | Section or field | Purpose | Supported entry | Source input ID | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Asynchronous handoff template control for M04-EC03 | Produce a bounded, reviewable asynchronous handoff template from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Criterion demonstrated: Defines written context, approved-recording questions, and response expectations for later authorized review | Completed fictional learner example. Supplied evidence — M04-I03: The recurring late Mountain meeting burdens several local time zones. Applied control — Defines a useful asynchronous protocol and the exact recording/response questions that must be answered before rollout. | M04-I03 | Location, date, holiday, or DST dependency: Not supplied; date-specific conversion required before scheduling. \| Working-time or privacy review: Ask whether recording is permitted/approved, who may access it, retention period, alternatives, and consent/notice requirements; answers not supplied. \| Status: Draft — written-context, recording, and response controls pending review | Authorized owner/reviewer is not supplied; route to the role named by the controlled process. | Draft — written-context, recording, and response controls pending review | ### Stop / Go / Escalate | Decision | Rule | |---|---| | **Stop** | Stop final scheduling when date/location, worker availability, leave, daylight-saving, holiday, workload, or country-qualified working-time evidence is absent. | | **Go** | Proceed to schedule review when all four weeks expose burden, async handoff, dependencies, exceptions, and authorized gates. | | **Escalate** | Escalate coverage tradeoffs to the people manager and country working-time/privacy/recording questions to qualified reviewers. | ### Completion test - [ ] Exactly four provisional week rows are complete. - [ ] F01/F02/F03/F12 are visible and no local time is invented. - [ ] No worker assignment, compliance conclusion, recording permission, or approved schedule 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-EC02 | M04-I01 (F01) | The planned team includes nine workers across Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. | Use the supplied timing condition as an anchor and mark any date, dependency, or completion claim not supplied. Cite M04-I01 (F01) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed four-week schedule 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-EC02 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the four-week schedule. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M04-EC02 or represent this artifact as complete. | Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer | 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-I04:** What bounded decision can the Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer make from M04-I04, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied? ### Artifact-build tables ### M04-A01 · Four-week schedule **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable four-week schedule from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. **Scoped case-fact inputs:** M04-I01, M04-I02, M04-I03, M04-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** - **M04-EC02:** Proposes a burden-rotation method without claiming a compliant final schedule | Week | Coverage deliverable | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Proposed burden rotation | Asynchronous handoff | Location, date, holiday, or DST dependency | Working-time or privacy review | Review gate | Exception | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | WEEK-01 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | WEEK-02 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | WEEK-03 | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | WEEK-04 | | | | | | | | | | 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) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap. - [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal. - [ ] The Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied. ### M04-A02 · Meeting-burden matrix **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable meeting-burden matrix from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. **Scoped case-fact inputs:** M04-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** - **M04-EC02:** Proposes a burden-rotation method without claiming a compliant final schedule | Item ID | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Criterion or required state | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 04A02R-01 | | | | | | Not started | | 04A02R-02 | | | | | | 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-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 Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied. ### M04-A03 · Asynchronous handoff template **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable asynchronous handoff template from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. **Scoped case-fact inputs:** M04-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** - **M04-EC03:** Defines written context, approved-recording questions, and response expectations for later authorized review | Section or field | Purpose | Supported entry | Source input ID | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 04A03R-01 | | | | | | Not started | | 04A03R-02 | | | | | | 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-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 Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied. ### M04-A04 · Location-date-holiday gap log **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable location-date-holiday gap log from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. **Scoped case-fact inputs:** M04-I02, M04-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** - **M04-EC01:** Shows the supplied countries and headquarters coverage request while marking city, date, daylight-saving, holiday, and worker-specific data not supplied | Entry ID | Issue or event | Evidence and source ID | Risk or impact | Owner | Bounded next step | Review point | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 04A04R-01 | | | | | | | Not started | | 04A04R-02 | | | | | | | Not started | **Completion checks** - [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M04-I02, M04-I04). - [ ] 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 Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer 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 · Four-week schedule | 4 | M04-EC02 | M04-I01, M04-I02, M04-I03, M04-I04 | | M04-A02 · Meeting-burden matrix | 2 | M04-EC02 | M04-I03 | | M04-A03 · Asynchronous handoff template | 2 | M04-EC03 | M04-I03 | | M04-A04 · Location-date-holiday gap log | 2 | M04-EC01 | M04-I02, M04-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 - [ ] **M04-EC01:** Shows the supplied countries and headquarters coverage request while marking city, date, daylight-saving, holiday, and worker-specific data not supplied - [ ] **M04-EC02:** Proposes a burden-rotation method without claiming a compliant final schedule - [ ] **M04-EC03:** Defines written context, approved-recording questions, and response expectations for later authorized review ### 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 — Handle feedback and concern **Task mode:** bounded-case-starter **Prompt:** Prepare a fair coaching conversation and route the nationality-joke report through the designated process. **Deliverable:** A feedback plan, concern-intake record, and non-retaliation action checklist. ### Supplied-input register | Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it | |---|---|---|---|---| | M05-I01 | case-fact | F09 | A manager proposes accent and camera-on time as performance measures. | | | M05-I02 | case-fact | F11 | A worker reports nationality-based jokes and requests discretion. | | | 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 | F09, F11 | Build a starter version of “A feedback plan, concern-intake record, and non-retaliation action checklist.” 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, 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 F09 and F11; treat accent/camera measures as provisional proposals and the nationality-joke report as a sensitive concern requiring discretion, not an established finding. - [ ] STOP “Handle feedback and concern” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F09 and F11; treat accent/camera measures as provisional proposals and the nationality-joke report as a sensitive concern requiring discretion, not an established finding. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized people/operations owner, with qualified local employment, payroll, privacy, safety, or language review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result. ### Operating procedure 1. Build the coaching plan around observable work evidence, job expectations, impact, and an invitation for context. 2. Reject accent and camera-on time as unsupported performance measures; route any replacement metric to calibrated review. 3. Keep the nationality-joke concern out of ordinary performance coaching and route it through the separate concern-intake/non-retaliation artifacts. 4. Do not promise absolute confidentiality, identify involved people, or conduct an investigation; preserve only the supplied allegation and requested discretion. 5. Name authorized people/HR and country-qualified owners, decision gates, support options, and non-retaliation controls as proposals. 6. Final-QC evidence, trigger/date gap, owner, gate, dependency, status, and no finding, disciplinary action, or completed escalation claim. ### Field-by-field guidance — M05-A01 | Field | What high-quality completion requires | |---|---| | Step | Number one reviewable action in order: preserve the report, separate concern and performance lanes, route to authorized owners, define support/non-retaliation, or record the decision gate. Cite M05-I01 or M05-I02 for the triggering statement; mark missing procedure evidence “Not supplied.” Do not imply an investigation, finding, promise, or employee decision. Review: the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Feedback or concern lane | Classify the record as routine performance coaching, metric-design review, or confidential workplace-concern intake, and cite M05-I01 (F09) or M05-I02 (F11). If the approved intake route or jurisdiction-specific procedure is not supplied, state that gap. Never process a discrimination/harassment concern as ordinary coaching or merge it with a performance decision. Keep pending for the people/HR concern owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Supported evidence and source input ID | List the exact module input ID beside every material statement, adding its fact ID when present for Supported evidence and source input ID. Evidence: M05-I01 (F09), M05-I02 (F11); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not cite the case brief as approval or cite an input that does not support the statement. Escalate to the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Observable evidence or preserved allegation | Record the specific observable evidence of the management proposal from M05-I01 (F09) as a proposal, or preserve the nationality-joke report from M05-I02 (F11) as an allegation in the reporter's supplied terms. Mark corroboration, scope, witnesses, findings, and outcome not supplied. Do not convert an allegation into a finding or evaluate the employee from the report. Review: the authorized concern owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Owner | For Owner, name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied. No “Handle feedback and concern” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing decision authority. Never invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Keep pending for the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Prohibited proxy or promise | Treat accent and camera-on time proposed at M05-I01 (F09) as prohibited proxies unless a lawful, role-relevant, evidence-based requirement is separately approved; do not promise confidentiality, non-retaliation, discipline, or outcome for the concern at M05-I02 (F11). Mark governing policy and authority not supplied. Never reveal the allegation beyond the approved need-to-know route. Escalate to the concern and performance-policy owners. | | Support or non-retaliation control | Support or non-retaliation control: Write a stop/go/escalate rule with its prerequisite, authorized decision role, evidence gate, and pending outcome. Cite M05-I01 (F09); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing decision gate. Do not execute the control, commit funds, release work, or claim a decision occurred in this exercise. Review: the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Decision gate | For Decision gate, write a stop/go/escalate rule with its prerequisite, authorized decision role, evidence gate, and pending outcome. No “Handle feedback and concern” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing decision gate. Never execute the control, commit funds, release work, or claim a decision occurred in this exercise. Keep pending for the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Dependency or gap | State the exact absent record, decision, method, value, or authority; explain why it matters and the bounded next request for Dependency or gap. Evidence: no direct “Handle feedback and concern” source fact; mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not hide the gap in narrative, fill it with a placeholder value, or imply the request was answered. Escalate to the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Status | Status: Select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required. No “Handle feedback and concern” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing state control. Do not mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Review: the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | ### 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. | Step | Feedback or concern lane | Supported evidence and source input ID | Observable evidence or preserved allegation | Owner | Prohibited proxy or promise | Support or non-retaliation control | Decision gate | Dependency or gap | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Step 1 — preserve the reported statements, separate the concern lane from performance coaching, and route both to authorized owners without investigating or deciding outcomes. | Separate performance-design review from confidential workplace-concern intake. | M05-I01 (F09); M05-I02 (F11) | Manager proposes accent and camera-on time as measures (M05-I01, F09). Worker reports nationality-based jokes and requests discretion (M05-I02, F11); preserve as an allegation, not a finding. | People/HR or designated concern owner for the allegation; manager/process owner for metric redesign; qualified local review where required. | Do not use accent, nationality, or camera-on time as a performance proxy; do not promise confidentiality, outcome, discipline, or non-retaliation beyond approved policy and authority. | Learner proposal — explain approved reporting/support channels, minimize disclosure, preserve evidence, and route retaliation concerns promptly; no investigation or outcome is claimed. | Stop routine feedback handling and escalate when discrimination/harassment or retaliation concern appears; authorized concern owner decides process and communications. | Approved concern-intake route, privacy/confidentiality limits, preservation/retention rules, support/non-retaliation protocol, qualified local review, authorized owners, and metric policy are not supplied. | Draft — cited evidence recorded; authorized review pending | ### Completed known-gap example — M05-A01 **Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result. | Step | Feedback or concern lane | Supported evidence and source input ID | Observable evidence or preserved allegation | Owner | Prohibited proxy or promise | Support or non-retaliation control | Decision gate | Dependency or gap | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Step 1 remains open — approved intake, preservation, privacy, support, local-review, and escalation procedures are not supplied. | Approved intake route and jurisdiction-specific process not supplied. | M05-I02 (F11); M05-I01 (F09) | Two statements supplied; corroboration, scope, and findings not supplied. | Not supplied — authorized concern and metric owners. | Policy/authority boundaries not supplied; no promise or employee decision may be made. | Not supplied — approved support, privacy, retention, and escalation procedure. | Open — qualified people/local review required before next procedural step. | Open — concern owner, approved intake route, privacy/retention and non-retaliation controls, local-review requirement, evidence-preservation method, and metric-policy decision remain missing. | Blocked — required evidence or authorized decision not supplied | ### Supporting artifact build sequence 1. **M05-A02 · Concern-intake record** — Produce a bounded, reviewable concern-intake record from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows 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 · Non-retaliation action checklist** — Produce a bounded, reviewable non-retaliation action checklist from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M05-I01 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 feedback based on accent, nationality, camera presence, stereotype, or an uninvestigated concern; stop any promise of absolute confidentiality. | | **Go** | Proceed to coaching-plan review when observable evidence, expectation, context invitation, support, owner, and correction path are explicit. | | **Escalate** | Escalate nationality-related concerns and non-retaliation needs promptly to authorized people/HR and country-qualified owners. | ### Completion test - [ ] Job-related feedback and protected-concern handling are separate. - [ ] F09/F11 retain provisional status and no person details are invented. - [ ] No investigation, finding, discipline, confidentiality promise, or action 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 | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | M05-A01 | M05-EC01 | M05-I01 (F09) | A manager proposes accent and camera-on time as performance measures. | Use the supplied condition to define one bounded step and a review gate; leave dates and execution results pending unless supplied. Cite M05-I01 (F09) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed feedback plan or an operational result. | #### Legacy known-gap trace | Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | M05-A01 | M05-EC01 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the feedback plan. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M05-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete. | Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer | Record the missing evidence in M05-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 **M05-I02:** What bounded decision can the Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer make from M05-I02, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied? ### Artifact-build tables ### M05-A01 · Feedback plan **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable feedback plan from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. **Scoped case-fact inputs:** M05-I01, 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-EC01:** Uses observable work evidence and invites context - **M05-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them | Step | Feedback or concern lane | Supported evidence and source input ID | Observable evidence or preserved allegation | Owner | Prohibited proxy or promise | Support or non-retaliation control | Decision gate | Dependency or gap | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 05A01R-01 | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 05A01R-02 | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 05A01R-03 | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 05A01R-04 | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 05A01R-05 | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 05A01R-06 | | | | | | | | | 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 Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied. ### M05-A02 · Concern-intake record **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable concern-intake 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:** Does not promise absolute confidentiality or conduct an unauthorized investigation | Record ID | Supported facts | Source input ID | Decision or action pending | Owner or reviewer | Evidence needed | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 05A02R-01 | | | | | | Not started | | 05A02R-02 | | | | | | 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 Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied. ### M05-A03 · Non-retaliation action checklist **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable non-retaliation action checklist from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. **Scoped case-fact inputs:** M05-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** - **M05-EC03:** Preserves facts, protects against retaliation, and involves qualified owners promptly | Check ID | Control or check | Evidence required | Source input ID | Owner | Result | Exception or gap | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 05A03R-01 | | | | | | | Not started | | 05A03R-02 | | | | | | | 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-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 Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer 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 · Feedback plan | 6 | M05-EC01, M05-EC04 | M05-I01, M05-I02 | | M05-A02 · Concern-intake record | 2 | M05-EC02 | M05-I02 | | M05-A03 · Non-retaliation action checklist | 2 | M05-EC03 | M05-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 - [ ] **M05-EC01:** Uses observable work evidence and invites context - [ ] **M05-EC02:** Does not promise absolute confidentiality or conduct an unauthorized investigation - [ ] **M05-EC03:** Preserves facts, protects against retaliation, and involves qualified owners promptly - [ ] **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 — Measure and develop fairly **Task mode:** bounded-case-starter **Prompt:** Replace volume, accent, and camera measures with job-related outcomes and a calibrated review process. **Deliverable:** A role scorecard, calibration guide, development plan, and escalation matrix. ### Supplied-input register | Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it | |---|---|---|---|---| | M06-I01 | case-fact | F06 | The role description lacks decision rights for refunds, changes, commitments, and incidents. | | | M06-I02 | case-fact | F09 | A manager proposes accent and camera-on time as performance measures. | | | M06-I03 | case-fact | F10 | Current reporting counts closed cases but omits quality, complexity, and dependencies. | | | M06-I04 | case-fact | F11 | A worker reports nationality-based jokes and requests discretion. | | | 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 | F06, F09, F10, F11 | Build a starter version of “A role scorecard, calibration guide, development plan, and escalation matrix.” 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, F09, F10, 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 F06, F09, F10, and F11; record that role definitions, metric formulas, thresholds, evidence systems, complexity, dependency, rework, outcomes, appeal, and calibration results are not supplied. - [ ] STOP “Measure and develop fairly” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F06, F09, F10, and F11; record that role definitions, metric formulas, thresholds, evidence systems, complexity, dependency, rework, outcomes, appeal, and calibration results are not supplied. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized people/operations owner, with qualified local employment, payroll, privacy, safety, or language review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result. ### Operating procedure 1. Define quality, complexity, dependency, rework, customer outcome, and control measures with observable formulas and evidence sources. 2. Use missing decision rights to limit what outcomes can fairly be attributed to the role. 3. Exclude accent, nationality, location, and unjustified camera/surveillance proxies from the scorecard. 4. Treat closed-case count as volume context only because quality, complexity, and dependencies are omitted. 5. Define learner-proposed support, correction, appeal, calibration, and country/specialist review paths. 6. Keep the nationality-related concern outside individual performance scoring and route it to the protected process. 7. Final-QC definition, evidence, provisional threshold, owner, cadence, status, and no employee score or adverse decision. ### Field-by-field guidance — M06-A01 | Field | What high-quality completion requires | |---|---| | Metric | Metric: Define the quantity, unit, population, formula, or threshold explicitly and keep supplied values separate from learner-designed calculation logic. No “Measure and develop fairly” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing measurement definition. Do not calculate a result from missing inputs, mix units, change the denominator, or present a proposed threshold as approved. Review: the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Operational definition | Define the specific eligible work, quality criteria, evidence record, complexity and dependency tags, rework treatment, outcome state, review period, and exclusions that make the metric reproducible. M06-I03 (F10) shows closed-case count alone is insufficient; mark the approved definition and data not supplied. Never score a person from volume alone or change eligibility after review. Keep pending for the performance-policy and people-analytics owners. | | Numerator | Define the quantity, unit, population, formula, or threshold explicitly and keep supplied values separate from learner-designed calculation logic for Numerator. Evidence: no direct “Measure and develop fairly” source fact; mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not calculate a result from missing inputs, mix units, change the denominator, or present a proposed threshold as approved. Escalate to the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Denominator | Denominator: Define the quantity, unit, population, formula, or threshold explicitly and keep supplied values separate from learner-designed calculation logic. No “Measure and develop fairly” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing measurement definition. Do not calculate a result from missing inputs, mix units, change the denominator, or present a proposed threshold as approved. Review: the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Complexity or dependency adjustment | For Complexity or dependency adjustment, state the exact absent record, decision, method, value, or authority; explain why it matters and the bounded next request. Cite M06-I03 (F10); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing gap discipline. Never hide the gap in narrative, fill it with a placeholder value, or imply the request was answered. Keep pending for the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Evidence source | Identify the controlled record, location, version, date, and module citation that governs this entry for Evidence source. Evidence: M06-I03 (F10), M06-I04 (F11); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not treat an undated draft, copied text, or secondary summary as the controlling record. Escalate to the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Provisional threshold | Provisional threshold: Define the quantity, unit, population, formula, or threshold explicitly and keep supplied values separate from learner-designed calculation logic. No “Measure and develop fairly” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing measurement definition. Do not calculate a result from missing inputs, mix units, change the denominator, or present a proposed threshold as approved. Review: the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Attribution boundary | State which upstream decision rights, dependencies, quality controls, complexity, rework, and outcomes must be visible before any attribution to an individual. Use M06-I01 (F06) for unclear authority and M06-I03 (F10) for the incomplete closed-case measure; mark causal evidence not supplied. Never infer individual performance from a count that omits these controls. Keep pending for the performance-policy and people-analytics owners. | | Excluded proxy | List accent, nationality, and camera-on time from M06-I02 (F09) as prohibited, excluded proxies; name only separately approved, role-relevant outcome evidence as a possible alternative. Mark the governing metric policy not supplied. Do not use language identity, nationality, visibility, or a request for written follow-up as a shortcut for performance. Escalate to the performance-policy owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Owner | Owner: Name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied. Cite M06-I01 (F06); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing decision authority. Do not invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Review: the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | | Calibration or appeal | Define who samples and calibrates scored evidence, the cadence, disagreement rule, correction record, employee review route, appeal owner, response target, and anti-retaliation/privacy controls. M06-I04 (F11) shows calibration and development context are missing; mark the approved process and results not supplied. Never claim an appeal was available, used, or resolved from this learner proposal. Keep pending for the performance-policy and people/HR owners. | | Status | Select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required for Status. Evidence: no direct “Measure and develop fairly” source fact; mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Escalate to the people owner and country-qualified reviewer. | ### 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. | Metric | Operational definition | Numerator | Denominator | Complexity or dependency adjustment | Evidence source | Provisional threshold | Attribution boundary | Excluded proxy | Owner | Calibration or appeal | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Learner-proposed case-quality measure; keep output volume separate from quality, complexity, dependency, and outcome evidence. | A reviewable case includes correct resolution evidence, required controls, complexity/dependency tags, rework, and outcome status; closed-case count alone is insufficient (M06-I03, F10). | Not supplied — number of eligible cases meeting the approved quality definition. | Not supplied — all eligible reviewed cases in a defined period, excluding only under an approved rule. | Learner proposal — stratify rather than silently weight by complexity/dependency; categories, data, and formula are not supplied. | M06-I03 (F10); M06-I04 (F11); controlling version/date remains pending if not stated in the cited input. | Not supplied — baseline, sampling plan, target, severity rule, and approval are required before scoring. | Do not attribute results to an individual when decision rights, upstream dependencies, quality, and outcomes are missing; role authority is unclear (M06-I01, F06). | Accent, nationality, and camera-on time are excluded from the proposed scorecard (M06-I02, F09). | Performance-policy owner approves metric purpose and exclusions; people-analytics owner governs formula, evidence, and calibration; people/HR owner governs correction and appeal; country-qualified employment/privacy reviewer checks local constraints. Assignments and decisions remain pending unless documented. | Learner proposal — evidence-based reviewer calibration plus a documented correction/appeal route; no employee score or decision is produced. | Draft — cited evidence recorded; authorized review pending | ### Completed known-gap example — M06-A01 **Reference only.** This row demonstrates how to preserve missing evidence without inventing a result. | Metric | Operational definition | Numerator | Denominator | Complexity or dependency adjustment | Evidence source | Provisional threshold | Attribution boundary | Excluded proxy | Owner | Calibration or appeal | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Not approved — metric and purpose pending. | Missing eligibility, quality criteria, evidence, complexity, dependency, rework, and outcome definitions. | Not supplied — no valid count. | Not supplied — no eligible population/period. | Not supplied — categories, evidence, and method. | not supplied — a controlled, current source with version/date and authority for “Evidence source”; use M06-I04 (F11); M06-I03 (F10) only to document why the controlled source is still required. | Not supplied — baseline and authorized threshold. | Open — decision rights and dependency evidence missing. | Exclusion proposed; policy approval not supplied. | Not supplied — identify the performance-policy, people-analytics, people/HR appeal, and country-qualified employment/privacy owners before scoring. | Not supplied — reviewers, cadence, evidence, correction, and appeal controls. | Blocked — required evidence or authorized decision not supplied | ### Supporting artifact build sequence 1. **M06-A02 · Performance calibration guide** — Produce a bounded, reviewable performance calibration guide from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 1 row from M06-I02, M06-I04 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 · Development plan** — Produce a bounded, reviewable development plan 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 · Escalation matrix** — Produce a bounded, reviewable escalation matrix from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M06-I04 and address 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 #### M06-A02 · Performance calibration guide **Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work. **Criterion demonstrated:** M06-EC02 **Why this row is included:** Replaces the proposed accent/camera measures with a role-relevant outcome measure and names every prohibited proxy. | Section | Supported statement | Source input ID | Assumption or gap | Decision requested | Reviewer | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Performance calibration guide — M06-EC02 | Completed fictional learner example. Supplied evidence — M06-I02: A manager proposes accent and camera-on time as performance measures. \| M06-I04: A worker reports nationality-based jokes and requests discretion. Applied control — Replaces the proposed accent/camera measures with a role-relevant outcome measure and names every prohibited proxy. | M06-I02; M06-I04 | Complexity or dependency adjustment: Document case difficulty, missing authority, external dependency, and assigned workload before comparison; method not supplied. \| Evidence source: M06-I01 (F06); M06-I02 (F09); M06-I03 (F10); M06-I04 (F11); operational records not supplied \| Provisional threshold: Not supplied; learner threshold requires baseline, role fit, fairness review, and approval | Excludes accent, nationality, location, and unjustified surveillance proxies. Learner-applied control: Replaces the proposed accent/camera measures with a role-relevant outcome measure and names every prohibited proxy. Record the evidence gap, route it to the authorized role, and leave execution and approval pending. | Owner: Authorized people/performance owner with privacy and qualified local review | Proposed metric — no worker score or decision produced | #### M06-A03 · Development plan **Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work. **Criterion demonstrated:** M06-EC03 **Why this row is included:** Provides the full evidence-to-appeal pathway and handles a sensitive report without inventing an investigation or outcome. | Step or milestone | Trigger or date | Evidence and source ID | Owner | Gate or threshold | Dependency or gap | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Development plan — Provides evidence, support, correction, appeal, and specialist review paths | Trigger: receipt of the cited module input or an authorized review request; execution date not supplied. | Completed fictional learner example. Supplied evidence — M06-I03: Current reporting counts closed cases but omits quality, complexity, and dependencies. Applied control — Provides the full evidence-to-appeal pathway and handles a sensitive report without inventing an investigation or outcome. \| Source input IDs: M06-I03 | Owner: Authorized people/performance owner; specialist routes to privacy, employee relations, qualified local counsel, or accessibility/language support as applicable | Gate: Provides evidence, support, correction, appeal, and specialist review paths; threshold or acceptance remains pending authorized definition where not supplied. | Evidence source: M06-I01 (F06); M06-I03 (F10); M06-I04 (F11); approved performance process not supplied \| Provisional threshold: Learner proposal: 100% process completion before consequential use; approval not supplied \| Calibration or appeal: Provide evidence access, support request, factual correction, second-level calibration, appeal, and confidential specialist referral; outcomes not supplied. | Control proposed — no review, finding, or appeal outcome claimed | ### Stop / Go / Escalate | Decision | Rule | |---|---| | **Stop** | Stop scoring when metrics use accent, nationality, location, unjustified surveillance, raw volume without context, or outcomes outside the role’s authority. | | **Go** | Proceed to calibration review when each metric has definition, evidence, attribution, threshold, owner, cadence, support, and appeal path. | | **Escalate** | Escalate metric fairness, protected-trait, surveillance, country-law, or concern-process issues to qualified people/country reviewers. | ### Completion test - [ ] Quality, complexity, dependency, rework, customer outcome, and control measures are defined. - [ ] Protected/unsupported proxies are explicitly excluded. - [ ] No employee score, threshold approval, investigation result, or employment decision 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 | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | M06-A01 | M06-EC01 | M06-I01 (F06) | The role description lacks decision rights for refunds, changes, commitments, and incidents. | Define one provisional measure from the supplied condition without reporting a result or threshold that the packet does not provide. Cite M06-I01 (F06) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed role scorecard 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 role scorecard. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M06-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete. | Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer | 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-I03:** What bounded decision can the Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer make from M06-I03, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied? ### Artifact-build tables ### M06-A01 · Role scorecard **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable role scorecard from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. **Scoped case-fact inputs:** M06-I01, M06-I03, M06-I02, 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-EC01:** Includes quality, complexity, dependencies, rework, customer outcomes, and controls | Metric | Operational definition | Numerator | Denominator | Complexity or dependency adjustment | Evidence source | Provisional threshold | Attribution boundary | Excluded proxy | Owner | Calibration or appeal | 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 | | 06A01R-07 | | | | | | | | | | | Not started | | 06A01R-08 | | | | | | | | | | | Not started | **Completion checks** - [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M06-I01, M06-I03). - [ ] 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 Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied. ### M06-A02 · Performance calibration guide **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable performance calibration guide from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. **Scoped case-fact inputs:** M06-I02, 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-EC02:** Excludes accent, nationality, location, and unjustified surveillance proxies | Section | Supported statement | Source input ID | Assumption or gap | Decision requested | Reviewer | Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 06A02R-01 | | | | | | Not started | **Completion checks** - [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M06-I02, M06-I04). - [ ] 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 Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied. ### M06-A03 · Development plan **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable development plan 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:** Provides evidence, support, correction, appeal, and specialist review paths | Step or milestone | Trigger or date | Evidence and source ID | Owner | Gate or threshold | Dependency or gap | 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 Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied. ### M06-A04 · Escalation matrix **Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable escalation matrix 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-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them | Item ID | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Criterion or required state | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | 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-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 Authorized people manager and country-qualified reviewer 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 · Role scorecard | 8 | M06-EC01 | M06-I01, M06-I03, M06-I02, M06-I04 | | M06-A02 · Performance calibration guide | 1 | M06-EC02 | M06-I02, M06-I04 | | M06-A03 · Development plan | 2 | M06-EC03 | M06-I03 | | M06-A04 · Escalation matrix | 2 | 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:** Includes quality, complexity, dependencies, rework, customer outcomes, and controls - [ ] **M06-EC02:** Excludes accent, nationality, location, and unjustified surveillance proxies - [ ] **M06-EC03:** Provides evidence, support, correction, appeal, and specialist review paths - [ ] **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.