{ "caseVersion": "2026.08.31-practice-3", "caseTitle": "ClearBench ethical outbound pilot", "disclosure": "This is a fictional, sanitized training case using fabricated organizations and contacts. It contains no real personal or confidential data and is not legal, privacy, employment, or sales-results advice.", "caseBrief": "ClearBench is a fictional supplier of modular quality-inspection workstations for small manufacturers. Leadership wants a four-week outbound pilot aimed at 120 companies in Utah and neighboring states. The proposed ideal-customer profile is plants with 25 to 250 employees, repeat inspection work, and a recent expansion, quality issue, or hiring signal. Research confirms 74 accounts meet all three fit indicators, 28 meet two, and 18 have no traceable trigger beyond industry. The list contains 162 contacts: 46 quality leaders, 39 operations leaders, 31 owners, 22 procurement contacts, and 24 people whose role is unclear. Twelve contacts left their listed employer, eight have explicit prior opt-outs, and 19 personal mobile numbers came from an unapproved list vendor. A draft email states that ClearBench will cut inspection time 40 percent, but the only evidence is one internal demonstration showing a 17 percent reduction under controlled conditions. The sequence proposes six emails, four calls, and two text messages over 14 days. It lacks channel-specific consent review, weekend restrictions, reply handling, and a stop condition after referral to another contact. Sales considers a meeting qualified whenever a prospect accepts a calendar invitation. Delivery specialists want a written problem, current process, stakeholder, urgency, and agreed next step before handoff. The pilot budget is $6,000, capacity is eight discovery calls per week, and only two specialists can conduct technical discovery. Learners must build a responsible account field, role research method, evidence-based message, controlled cadence, qualification handoff, and learning scorecard. The exercise does not promise response rates, revenue, or regulatory compliance; applicable outreach rules require qualified review.", "facts": [ { "id": "F01", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "The pilot covers 120 companies in Utah and neighboring states over four weeks." }, { "id": "F02", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Seventy-four accounts meet three fit indicators, twenty-eight meet two, and eighteen lack a traceable trigger." }, { "id": "F03", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "The field contains 162 contacts across five role groupings." }, { "id": "F04", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Twelve contacts have left their listed employer." }, { "id": "F05", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Eight contacts have explicit prior opt-outs." }, { "id": "F06", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Nineteen personal mobile numbers came from an unapproved vendor." }, { "id": "F07", "confidence": "conflicting", "record": "The draft promises forty-percent time savings while the only internal test measured seventeen percent." }, { "id": "F08", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "The proposed fourteen-day cadence includes six emails, four calls, and two texts." }, { "id": "F09", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "The cadence has no documented channel review, weekend rule, reply handling, or referral stop condition." }, { "id": "F10", "confidence": "conflicting", "record": "Sales and delivery teams use different definitions of a qualified meeting." }, { "id": "F11", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Delivery capacity is eight discovery calls per week with two technical specialists." }, { "id": "F12", "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "The approved pilot budget ceiling is $6,000." } ], "challenges": [ { "module": 1, "title": "Prioritize the account field", "prompt": "Apply fit, trigger, exclusion, capacity, and evidence rules to select a bounded pilot cohort.", "deliverable": "An aggregate fit-tier prioritization table from F01 and F02 plus a blank record-level account-selection log for later verified inputs.", "evidenceCriteria": [ "Explains why each aggregate tier fits, fails, or lacks the defined profile evidence", "Shows how stale, opted-out, and unsupported records would be excluded or quarantined without claiming individual account review", "Keeps proposed outreach volume within the supplied discovery and delivery capacity", "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" ], "taskMode": "bounded-case-starter", "providedInputs": [ { "id": "M01-I01", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F01" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "The pilot covers 120 companies in Utah and neighboring states over four weeks." }, { "id": "M01-I02", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F02" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Seventy-four accounts meet three fit indicators, twenty-eight meet two, and eighteen lack a traceable trigger." }, { "id": "M01-I03", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F04" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Twelve contacts have left their listed employer." }, { "id": "M01-I04", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F05" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Eight contacts have explicit prior opt-outs." }, { "id": "M01-I05", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F06" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Nineteen personal mobile numbers came from an unapproved vendor." }, { "id": "M01-I06", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F11" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Delivery capacity is eight discovery calls per week with two technical specialists." }, { "id": "M01-I07", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F12" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "The approved pilot budget ceiling is $6,000." }, { "id": "M01-B01", "kind": "case-brief", "sourceFactIds": [], "sourceRecordIds": [ "CB01" ], "confidence": "mixed", "record": "Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment." }, { "id": "M01-S01", "kind": "assignment-scope", "sourceFactIds": [ "F01", "F02", "F04", "F05", "F06", "F11", "F12" ], "confidence": "instruction", "record": "Build a starter version of “An aggregate fit-tier prioritization table from F01 and F02 plus a blank record-level account-selection log for later verified inputs.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it." } ], "completionBoundary": "Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F01, F02, F04, F05, F06, F11, F12, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.", "starterSchema": { "id": "M01-W02", "title": "Prioritize the account field guided artifact-build sheet", "columns": [ "Component ID", "Requested artifact component", "Evidence criterion to test", "Supplied input IDs", "Supported entry", "Not-supplied gap or learner proposal", "Authorized owner or reviewer", "Status" ], "rows": [ { "id": "M01-A01", "component": "Aggregate fit-tier prioritization table", "criterion": "Explains why each aggregate tier fits, fails, or lacks the defined profile evidence | Keeps proposed outreach volume within the supplied discovery and delivery capacity | Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M01-I01", "M01-I02", "M01-I03", "M01-I04", "M01-I06" ] }, { "id": "M01-A02", "component": "Record-level account-selection log", "criterion": "Shows how stale, opted-out, and unsupported records would be excluded or quarantined without claiming individual account review", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M01-I05", "M01-I07" ] } ] }, "workbookPlan": { "id": "M01-WP01", "version": "2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2", "contextInputIds": [ "M01-B01", "M01-S01" ], "criterionCatalog": [ { "id": "M01-EC01", "text": "Explains why each aggregate tier fits, fails, or lacks the defined profile evidence" }, { "id": "M01-EC02", "text": "Shows how stale, opted-out, and unsupported records would be excluded or quarantined without claiming individual account review" }, { "id": "M01-EC03", "text": "Keeps proposed outreach volume within the supplied discovery and delivery capacity" }, { "id": "M01-EC04", "text": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "M01-A01", "title": "Aggregate fit-tier prioritization table", "type": "matrix", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable aggregate fit-tier prioritization table from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Item ID", "Supported evidence", "Source input ID", "Criterion or required state", "Gap or learner proposal", "Owner or reviewer", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 2, "prefix": "01A01R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "sales-development:M01:A01", "criterionIds": [ "M01-EC01", "M01-EC03", "M01-EC04" ], "inputIds": [ "M01-I01", "M01-I02", "M01-I03", "M01-I04", "M01-I06" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M01-I01, M01-I02, M01-I03, M01-I04, M01-I06).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M01-EC01, M01-EC03, 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 Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M01-A02", "title": "Record-level account-selection log", "type": "register", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable record-level account-selection log from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Entry ID", "Issue or event", "Evidence and source ID", "Risk or impact", "Owner", "Bounded next step", "Review point", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 2, "prefix": "01A02R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "sales-development:M01:A02", "criterionIds": [ "M01-EC02" ], "inputIds": [ "M01-I05", "M01-I07" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M01-I05, M01-I07).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M01-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 Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] } ], "quantityContracts": [ { "artifactId": "M01-A01", "rowCount": 2, "rowPrefix": "01A01R" }, { "artifactId": "M01-A02", "rowCount": 2, "rowPrefix": "01A02R" } ], "workedStarter": { "artifactId": "M01-A01", "criterionId": "M01-EC01", "inputId": "M01-I01", "supportedValue": "The pilot covers 120 companies in Utah and neighboring states over four weeks.", "application": "Place the supplied condition in the appropriate comparison row and leave every unsupplied requirement visibly open. Cite M01-I01 (F01) in the row.", "boundary": "This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed aggregate fit-tier prioritization table or an operational result." }, "knownGap": { "artifactId": "M01-A01", "criterionId": "M01-EC01", "missingEvidence": "The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the aggregate fit-tier prioritization table.", "whyItMatters": "Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M01-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete.", "ownerRole": "Sales process owner", "boundedNextStep": "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.", "status": "Open — not supplied" }, "decisionPrompt": { "inputId": "M01-I07", "prompt": "What bounded decision can the Sales process owner make from M01-I07, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?" }, "instructionalGuide": { "version": "2026.09.01-academy-workbook-instruction-bank-1", "principalArtifactId": "M01-A01", "prerequisiteCheck": [ "Confirm the four-week, 120-company pilot scope and the three supplied aggregate fit tiers before proposing a cohort.", "Keep aggregate company counts separate from contact-level exclusions; record identities, account names, trigger dates, and dispositions are not supplied.", "Treat the eight-discovery-calls-per-week capacity and $6,000 ceiling as boundaries, not evidence that any outreach plan is approved." ], "operatingSteps": [ "Capture the pilot scope, aggregate fit-tier counts, stale-contact count, opt-out count, capacity, and budget ceiling with their exact module input IDs.", "Create a separate table row for the three-indicator, two-indicator, and no-traceable-trigger account tiers without inventing company identities.", "Define the required state for each tier: traceable fit evidence, current trigger, approved contact source, suppression result, and capacity allocation.", "Rank the aggregate tiers by evidence strength while leaving record-level inclusion and exclusion decisions pending.", "Calculate only a proposed capacity boundary from eight discovery calls per week across four weeks; do not convert it into a forecast or guaranteed cohort result.", "Route stale-record, opt-out, unsupported-source, budget, and final cohort decisions to the Sales process owner and authorized privacy reviewer.", "Quality-check counts, source IDs, missing-record labels, capacity logic, and status language before any bounded pilot recommendation." ], "fieldGuidance": { "Item ID": "Use a stable aggregate-tier identifier such as TIER-01; do not insert a company or person not supplied.", "Supported evidence": "Record only the supplied population, tier count, exclusion count, or capacity fact with its limitation.", "Source input ID": "Cite the exact M01-Ixx input and fact ID supporting the entry.", "Criterion or required state": "State the observable evidence or control required for prioritization, exclusion, or capacity fit.", "Gap or learner proposal": "Identify missing record-level evidence or label a selection, review, or capacity method as a learner proposal.", "Owner or reviewer": "Use Sales process owner and, for contact permission or source issues, authorized privacy reviewer.", "Status": "Use Aggregate evidence, Learner proposal, Record review pending, Quarantine required, or Approval pending." }, "completedExampleRow": { "Item ID": "TIER-01", "Supported evidence": "Seventy-four accounts meet all three fit indicators within a four-week field of 120 companies.", "Source input ID": "M01-I01 (F01, confirmed); M01-I02 (F02, confirmed)", "Criterion or required state": "Prioritize the strongest aggregate fit tier while preserving record-level verification and delivery capacity.", "Gap or learner proposal": "Account identities, individual indicator evidence, trigger dates, approved contacts, suppression results, and selected cohort: not supplied.", "Owner or reviewer": "Sales process owner and authorized privacy reviewer", "Status": "Aggregate evidence — record review pending" }, "completedKnownGapRow": { "Item ID": "GAP-01", "Supported evidence": "Eighteen accounts lack a traceable trigger; individual records are not supplied.", "Source input ID": "M01-I02 (F02, confirmed)", "Criterion or required state": "Require a current, traceable business trigger before record-level inclusion.", "Gap or learner proposal": "Company identities, attempted source checks, source dates, trigger evidence, and authorized disposition: not supplied.", "Owner or reviewer": "Sales process owner", "Status": "Gap open — do not include by assumption" }, "supportingArtifacts": [], "decisionRule": { "stop": "Stop cohort selection when account-level fit, trigger, suppression, source-permission, capacity, or budget evidence is missing.", "go": "Go to bounded record review when aggregate tiers, exclusion controls, capacity boundary, evidence fields, and reviewer roles are defined.", "escalate": "Escalate privacy, purchased-data, suppression, budget, and final pilot-volume decisions to authorized owners before outreach." }, "completionTest": [ "The table preserves the 74, 28, and 18 aggregate tiers without creating company-level determinations.", "The proposed cohort method accounts for exclusions and no more than thirty-two discovery calls across four supplied weeks.", "Every omitted operational record or result is marked not supplied, and no outreach or approval is implied." ], "criterionSatisfiability": [ { "criterionId": "M01-EC01", "criterionOrdinal": 1, "criterionText": "Explains why each aggregate tier fits, fails, or lacks the defined profile evidence", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." }, { "criterionId": "M01-EC02", "criterionOrdinal": 2, "criterionText": "Shows how stale, opted-out, and unsupported records would be excluded or quarantined without claiming individual account review", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." }, { "criterionId": "M01-EC03", "criterionOrdinal": 3, "criterionText": "Keeps proposed outreach volume within the supplied discovery and delivery capacity", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." }, { "criterionId": "M01-EC04", "criterionOrdinal": 4, "criterionText": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." } ] } } }, { "module": 2, "title": "Map buying roles", "prompt": "Research relevant roles using current business sources without collecting unnecessary personal data.", "deliverable": "A five-group buying-role hypothesis map and blank contact-verification log; no individual identity or role is treated as verified.", "evidenceCriteria": [ "Distinguishes user, evaluator, approver, procurement, and blocker as hypotheses rather than verified people", "Includes fields for source date and confidence while marking individual source records not supplied", "Rejects unapproved personal mobile data and preserves prior opt-outs in the proposed verification process" ], "taskMode": "bounded-case-starter", "providedInputs": [ { "id": "M02-I01", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F03" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "The field contains 162 contacts across five role groupings." }, { "id": "M02-I02", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F04" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Twelve contacts have left their listed employer." }, { "id": "M02-I03", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F05" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Eight contacts have explicit prior opt-outs." }, { "id": "M02-I04", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F06" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Nineteen personal mobile numbers came from an unapproved vendor." }, { "id": "M02-B01", "kind": "case-brief", "sourceFactIds": [], "sourceRecordIds": [ "CB01" ], "confidence": "mixed", "record": "Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment." }, { "id": "M02-S01", "kind": "assignment-scope", "sourceFactIds": [ "F03", "F04", "F05", "F06" ], "confidence": "instruction", "record": "Build a starter version of “A five-group buying-role hypothesis map and blank contact-verification log; no individual identity or role is treated as verified.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it." } ], "completionBoundary": "Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F03, F04, F05, F06, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.", "starterSchema": { "id": "M02-W02", "title": "Map buying roles guided artifact-build sheet", "columns": [ "Component ID", "Requested artifact component", "Evidence criterion to test", "Supplied input IDs", "Supported entry", "Not-supplied gap or learner proposal", "Authorized owner or reviewer", "Status" ], "rows": [ { "id": "M02-A01", "component": "Five-group buying-role hypothesis map", "criterion": "Distinguishes user, evaluator, approver, procurement, and blocker as hypotheses rather than verified people", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M02-I01" ] }, { "id": "M02-A02", "component": "Contact-verification log", "criterion": "Includes fields for source date and confidence while marking individual source records not supplied | Rejects unapproved personal mobile data and preserves prior opt-outs in the proposed verification process", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M02-I02", "M02-I03", "M02-I04" ] } ] }, "workbookPlan": { "id": "M02-WP01", "version": "2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2", "contextInputIds": [ "M02-B01", "M02-S01" ], "criterionCatalog": [ { "id": "M02-EC01", "text": "Distinguishes user, evaluator, approver, procurement, and blocker as hypotheses rather than verified people" }, { "id": "M02-EC02", "text": "Includes fields for source date and confidence while marking individual source records not supplied" }, { "id": "M02-EC03", "text": "Rejects unapproved personal mobile data and preserves prior opt-outs in the proposed verification process" } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "M02-A01", "title": "Five-group buying-role hypothesis map", "type": "matrix", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable five-group buying-role hypothesis map from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Item ID", "Supported evidence", "Source input ID", "Criterion or required state", "Gap or learner proposal", "Owner or reviewer", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 5, "prefix": "ROLE", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "sales-development:M02:A01", "criterionIds": [ "M02-EC01" ], "inputIds": [ "M02-I01" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M02-I01).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M02-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 Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M02-A02", "title": "Contact-verification log", "type": "register", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable contact-verification log from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Entry ID", "Issue or event", "Evidence and source ID", "Risk or impact", "Owner", "Bounded next step", "Review point", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 2, "prefix": "02A02R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "sales-development:M02:A02", "criterionIds": [ "M02-EC02", "M02-EC03" ], "inputIds": [ "M02-I02", "M02-I03", "M02-I04" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M02-I02, M02-I03, M02-I04).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M02-EC02, M02-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 Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] } ], "quantityContracts": [ { "artifactId": "M02-A01", "rowCount": 5, "rowPrefix": "ROLE" }, { "artifactId": "M02-A02", "rowCount": 2, "rowPrefix": "02A02R" } ], "workedStarter": { "artifactId": "M02-A01", "criterionId": "M02-EC01", "inputId": "M02-I01", "supportedValue": "The field contains 162 contacts across five role groupings.", "application": "Place the supplied condition in the appropriate comparison row and leave every unsupplied requirement visibly open. Cite M02-I01 (F03) in the row.", "boundary": "This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed five-group buying-role hypothesis map or an operational result." }, "knownGap": { "artifactId": "M02-A01", "criterionId": "M02-EC01", "missingEvidence": "The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the five-group buying-role hypothesis map.", "whyItMatters": "Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M02-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete.", "ownerRole": "Sales process owner", "boundedNextStep": "Record the missing evidence in M02-A01, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise.", "status": "Open — not supplied" }, "decisionPrompt": { "inputId": "M02-I04", "prompt": "What bounded decision can the Sales process owner make from M02-I04, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?" }, "instructionalGuide": { "version": "2026.09.01-academy-workbook-instruction-bank-1", "principalArtifactId": "M02-A01", "prerequisiteCheck": [ "Confirm the supplied field contains 162 contacts across five role groupings, plus stale-employer, opt-out, and unapproved-mobile conditions.", "Treat user, evaluator, approver, procurement, and blocker as role hypotheses; no individual identity or role verification is supplied.", "Define source-date and confidence fields before any proposed contact-verification workflow." ], "operatingSteps": [ "Capture the aggregate five-role population and each contact-quality constraint with exact module input IDs.", "Create five hypothesis rows for user, evaluator, approver, procurement, and blocker, labeling each as a proposed buying role rather than a verified person.", "For every role, state the business question it may answer and the current-business-source evidence required for verification.", "Include source URL or document, source date, observed role evidence, confidence, suppression result, and reviewer in the proposed verification design.", "Quarantine departed-employer records, preserve explicit prior opt-outs, and reject unapproved personal mobile data from the proposed process.", "Route individual role assignment and contact-permission decisions to the Sales process owner and authorized privacy reviewer.", "Quality-check that every role remains hypothetical, every missing record is visible, and no personal data, outreach, or verification result is fabricated." ], "fieldGuidance": { "Item ID": "Use a stable role-hypothesis identifier such as ROLE-01, never an invented contact name.", "Supported evidence": "Record the aggregate five-group fact and any supplied quality constraint without assigning a person.", "Source input ID": "Cite M02-I01 for the aggregate role field; use other module inputs only when stating a contact-control condition.", "Criterion or required state": "Name the role hypothesis and the observable current-business-source evidence required to verify it.", "Gap or learner proposal": "Mark identity, source, date, confidence, and record-level result not supplied; label the verification method as proposed.", "Owner or reviewer": "Use Sales process owner and authorized privacy reviewer; no named reviewer is supplied.", "Status": "Use Aggregate evidence, Hypothesis only, Verification pending, Suppressed, or Quarantine required." }, "completedExampleRow": { "Item ID": "ROLE-01", "Supported evidence": "The field contains 162 contacts across five role groupings.", "Source input ID": "M02-I01 (F03, confirmed)", "Criterion or required state": "User-role hypothesis requires current business-source evidence of hands-on inspection-workstation use or process ownership.", "Gap or learner proposal": "Contact identity, employer, source, source date, observed evidence, confidence, and verification result: not supplied.", "Owner or reviewer": "Sales process owner and authorized privacy reviewer", "Status": "Hypothesis only — individual verification pending" }, "completedKnownGapRow": { "Item ID": "GAP-01", "Supported evidence": "Nineteen personal mobile numbers came from an unapproved vendor.", "Source input ID": "M02-I04 (F06, confirmed)", "Criterion or required state": "Use only approved, business-relevant sources and preserve permission and suppression controls.", "Gap or learner proposal": "Affected record identities, vendor approval, lawful basis, source dates, and authorized disposition: not supplied; learner proposes quarantine.", "Owner or reviewer": "Authorized privacy reviewer and Sales process owner", "Status": "Quarantine required — no use permitted" }, "supportingArtifacts": [], "decisionRule": { "stop": "Stop verification or outreach when source approval, current employer, source date, confidence, suppression, or contact permission is absent.", "go": "Go to bounded business-source review when role hypotheses, minimum fields, quarantine rules, and reviewer boundaries are documented.", "escalate": "Escalate personal mobile data, purchased sources, opt-outs, and jurisdiction-specific permission questions to the authorized privacy reviewer." }, "completionTest": [ "All five buying roles are framed as hypotheses rather than verified individuals.", "The proposed process includes source date, confidence, suppression, and source-approval controls.", "Departed contacts, prior opt-outs, and unapproved personal mobile data are not treated as outreach-ready." ], "criterionSatisfiability": [ { "criterionId": "M02-EC01", "criterionOrdinal": 1, "criterionText": "Distinguishes user, evaluator, approver, procurement, and blocker as hypotheses rather than verified people", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." }, { "criterionId": "M02-EC02", "criterionOrdinal": 2, "criterionText": "Includes fields for source date and confidence while marking individual source records not supplied", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." }, { "criterionId": "M02-EC03", "criterionOrdinal": 3, "criterionText": "Rejects unapproved personal mobile data and preserves prior opt-outs in the proposed verification process", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." } ] } } }, { "module": 3, "title": "Write a supportable message", "prompt": "Replace the unsupported savings claim with a relevant, testable value hypothesis.", "deliverable": "Two message variants with claim ledger and review notes.", "evidenceCriteria": [ "Uses only approved business signals and source-backed statements", "Labels the seventeen-percent demonstration as limited internal evidence", "Invites correction and avoids urgency, guarantee, or false familiarity", "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" ], "taskMode": "bounded-case-starter", "providedInputs": [ { "id": "M03-I01", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F02" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Seventy-four accounts meet three fit indicators, twenty-eight meet two, and eighteen lack a traceable trigger." }, { "id": "M03-I02", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F07" ], "confidence": "conflicting", "record": "The draft promises forty-percent time savings while the only internal test measured seventeen percent." }, { "id": "M03-B01", "kind": "case-brief", "sourceFactIds": [], "sourceRecordIds": [ "CB01" ], "confidence": "mixed", "record": "Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment." }, { "id": "M03-S01", "kind": "assignment-scope", "sourceFactIds": [ "F02", "F07" ], "confidence": "instruction", "record": "Build a starter version of “Two message variants with claim ledger and review notes.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it." } ], "completionBoundary": "Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F02, F07, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.", "starterSchema": { "id": "M03-W02", "title": "Write a supportable message guided artifact-build sheet", "columns": [ "Component ID", "Requested artifact component", "Evidence criterion to test", "Supplied input IDs", "Supported entry", "Not-supplied gap or learner proposal", "Authorized owner or reviewer", "Status" ], "rows": [ { "id": "M03-A01", "component": "Supportable message variants", "criterion": "Uses only approved business signals and source-backed statements | Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M03-I01" ] }, { "id": "M03-A02", "component": "Message claim ledger", "criterion": "Labels the seventeen-percent demonstration as limited internal evidence", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M03-I02" ] }, { "id": "M03-A03", "component": "Message review notes", "criterion": "Invites correction and avoids urgency, guarantee, or false familiarity", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M03-I01" ] } ] }, "workbookPlan": { "id": "M03-WP01", "version": "2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2", "contextInputIds": [ "M03-B01", "M03-S01" ], "criterionCatalog": [ { "id": "M03-EC01", "text": "Uses only approved business signals and source-backed statements" }, { "id": "M03-EC02", "text": "Labels the seventeen-percent demonstration as limited internal evidence" }, { "id": "M03-EC03", "text": "Invites correction and avoids urgency, guarantee, or false familiarity" }, { "id": "M03-EC04", "text": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "M03-A01", "title": "Supportable message variants", "type": "message", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable supportable message variants from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Draft ID", "Audience and purpose", "Supported facts", "Proposed wording", "Prohibited or unsupported claim", "Reviewer", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 2, "prefix": "MESSAGE", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "sales-development:M03:A01", "criterionIds": [ "M03-EC01", "M03-EC04" ], "inputIds": [ "M03-I01" ], "completionChecks": [ "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 Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M03-A02", "title": "Message claim ledger", "type": "register", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable message claim ledger from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Entry ID", "Issue or event", "Evidence and source ID", "Risk or impact", "Owner", "Bounded next step", "Review point", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 2, "prefix": "03A02R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "sales-development:M03:A02", "criterionIds": [ "M03-EC02" ], "inputIds": [ "M03-I02" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M03-I02).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M03-EC02) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M03-A03", "title": "Message review notes", "type": "brief", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable message review notes from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Section", "Supported statement", "Source input ID", "Assumption or gap", "Decision requested", "Reviewer", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 1, "prefix": "03A03R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "sales-development:M03:A03", "criterionIds": [ "M03-EC03" ], "inputIds": [ "M03-I01" ], "completionChecks": [ "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 Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] } ], "quantityContracts": [ { "artifactId": "M03-A01", "rowCount": 2, "rowPrefix": "MESSAGE" }, { "artifactId": "M03-A02", "rowCount": 2, "rowPrefix": "03A02R" } ], "workedStarter": { "artifactId": "M03-A01", "criterionId": "M03-EC01", "inputId": "M03-I01", "supportedValue": "Seventy-four accounts meet three fit indicators, twenty-eight meet two, and eighteen lack a traceable trigger.", "application": "Translate the supplied condition into bounded draft language while excluding unsupported promises, outcomes, or approvals. Cite M03-I01 (F02) in the row.", "boundary": "This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed supportable message variants or an operational result." }, "knownGap": { "artifactId": "M03-A01", "criterionId": "M03-EC01", "missingEvidence": "The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the supportable message variants.", "whyItMatters": "Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M03-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete.", "ownerRole": "Sales process owner", "boundedNextStep": "Record the missing evidence in M03-A01, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise.", "status": "Open — not supplied" }, "decisionPrompt": { "inputId": "M03-I02", "prompt": "What bounded decision can the Sales process owner make from M03-I02, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?" }, "instructionalGuide": { "version": "2026.09.01-academy-workbook-instruction-bank-1", "principalArtifactId": "M03-A01", "prerequisiteCheck": [ "Confirm the aggregate fit-tier evidence and the conflicting 40-percent promise versus 17-percent controlled internal demonstration.", "No approved claim wording, account-specific signal, customer result, external validation, or completed review is supplied.", "Define a message review boundary that includes Sales, authorized technical claims review, and privacy review where applicable." ], "operatingSteps": [ "Capture each potential message fact with its exact module input ID, confidence, scope, and missing context.", "Separate audience relevance from performance claims; aggregate fit counts do not establish that any named account fits.", "Draft a bounded relevance sentence that requests correction and does not imply false familiarity or verified account-specific knowledge.", "Place the 40-percent promise and 17-percent internal demonstration in the claim ledger, preserving their conflict and controlled-test limitation.", "Prohibit guarantees, urgency, customer savings, external proof, and extrapolation until stronger evidence and authorized wording are supplied.", "Route any numeric or technical performance language to the authorized technical claims reviewer before activation.", "Quality-check source traceability, limitation language, correction path, tone, prohibited claims, review status, and absence of live sending." ], "fieldGuidance": { "Draft ID": "Use a stable training identifier such as MSG-01; do not represent it as an approved campaign asset.", "Audience and purpose": "Describe a role hypothesis and bounded conversation purpose, not a verified individual or account condition.", "Supported facts": "Record only scoped aggregate evidence and its limitation; do not claim account-specific relevance.", "Proposed wording": "Write a concise learner-proposed sentence that invites correction and avoids urgency, guarantee, or false familiarity.", "Prohibited or unsupported claim": "Name the exact wording, inference, or outcome that cannot be used from supplied evidence.", "Reviewer": "Use Sales process owner and authorized technical claims reviewer; add privacy reviewer when data or channel questions arise.", "Status": "Use Learner draft, Claim conflict open, Technical review required, or Not approved for sending." }, "completedExampleRow": { "Draft ID": "MSG-01", "Audience and purpose": "Operations-role hypothesis; ask whether repeat inspection work is a current priority.", "Supported facts": "Aggregate field includes 74 accounts meeting three fit indicators; account-specific identity and fit evidence: not supplied.", "Proposed wording": "Learner proposal: “If repeat inspection work is a current priority, would a brief conversation be useful? If I have the wrong context, please correct me.”", "Prohibited or unsupported claim": "Do not say the recipient is verified to fit or that ClearBench will reduce inspection time by 40 percent.", "Reviewer": "Sales process owner and authorized technical claims reviewer", "Status": "Learner draft — not approved for sending" }, "completedKnownGapRow": { "Draft ID": "GAP-01", "Audience and purpose": "Any account-specific outreach message.", "Supported facts": "No account identity, current trigger, recipient role, or source record is supplied in this module.", "Proposed wording": "Not supplied; keep the account-specific message pending.", "Prohibited or unsupported claim": "False familiarity, verified fit, guaranteed savings, unqualified urgency, customer result, or technical approval.", "Reviewer": "Sales process owner, authorized technical claims reviewer, and privacy reviewer", "Status": "Gap open — no live message" }, "supportingArtifacts": [], "decisionRule": { "stop": "Stop drafting or sending when a material claim lacks source, scope, limitation, account relevance, reviewer, or permitted-channel evidence.", "go": "Go to bounded editorial review when every claim is sourced, limitations are explicit, correction is invited, and prohibited language is logged.", "escalate": "Escalate numeric performance, technical suitability, customer-result, privacy, and outreach-permission claims to authorized reviewers." }, "completionTest": [ "The draft uses aggregate evidence only and does not imply a named account or person was verified.", "The 40-percent promise is prohibited, and the 17-percent internal result remains limited controlled evidence in the claim ledger.", "The wording invites correction, avoids urgency and guarantee, and remains explicitly not approved for sending." ], "criterionSatisfiability": [ { "criterionId": "M03-EC01", "criterionOrdinal": 1, "criterionText": "Uses only approved business signals and source-backed statements", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." }, { "criterionId": "M03-EC02", "criterionOrdinal": 2, "criterionText": "Labels the seventeen-percent demonstration as limited internal evidence", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." }, { "criterionId": "M03-EC03", "criterionOrdinal": 3, "criterionText": "Invites correction and avoids urgency, guarantee, or false familiarity", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." }, { "criterionId": "M03-EC04", "criterionOrdinal": 4, "criterionText": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." } ] } } }, { "module": 4, "title": "Control the cadence", "prompt": "Design a multi-channel sequence with channel approval, suppression, stop rules, and exception monitoring.", "deliverable": "A fourteen-day cadence map and negative-path test checklist.", "evidenceCriteria": [ "Stops on opt-out, reply, referral, disqualification, and accepted handoff", "Defines permitted channels, timing, owner, and escalation", "Tests suppression and wrong-contact handling before activation", "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" ], "taskMode": "bounded-case-starter", "providedInputs": [ { "id": "M04-I01", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F05" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Eight contacts have explicit prior opt-outs." }, { "id": "M04-I02", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F06" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Nineteen personal mobile numbers came from an unapproved vendor." }, { "id": "M04-I03", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F08" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "The proposed fourteen-day cadence includes six emails, four calls, and two texts." }, { "id": "M04-I04", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F09" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "The cadence has no documented channel review, weekend rule, reply handling, or referral stop condition." }, { "id": "M04-B01", "kind": "case-brief", "sourceFactIds": [], "sourceRecordIds": [ "CB01" ], "confidence": "mixed", "record": "Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment." }, { "id": "M04-S01", "kind": "assignment-scope", "sourceFactIds": [ "F05", "F06", "F08", "F09" ], "confidence": "instruction", "record": "Build a starter version of “A fourteen-day cadence map and negative-path test 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." } ], "completionBoundary": "Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F05, F06, F08, F09, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.", "starterSchema": { "id": "M04-W02", "title": "Control the cadence guided artifact-build sheet", "columns": [ "Component ID", "Requested artifact component", "Evidence criterion to test", "Supplied input IDs", "Supported entry", "Not-supplied gap or learner proposal", "Authorized owner or reviewer", "Status" ], "rows": [ { "id": "M04-A01", "component": "Fourteen-day cadence map", "criterion": "Stops on opt-out, reply, referral, disqualification, and accepted handoff | Tests suppression and wrong-contact handling before activation | Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M04-I01", "M04-I03", "M04-I04" ] }, { "id": "M04-A02", "component": "Negative-path test checklist", "criterion": "Defines permitted channels, timing, owner, and escalation", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M04-I02" ] } ] }, "workbookPlan": { "id": "M04-WP01", "version": "2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2", "contextInputIds": [ "M04-B01", "M04-S01" ], "criterionCatalog": [ { "id": "M04-EC01", "text": "Stops on opt-out, reply, referral, disqualification, and accepted handoff" }, { "id": "M04-EC02", "text": "Defines permitted channels, timing, owner, and escalation" }, { "id": "M04-EC03", "text": "Tests suppression and wrong-contact handling before activation" }, { "id": "M04-EC04", "text": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "M04-A01", "title": "Fourteen-day cadence map", "type": "calendar", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable fourteen-day cadence map from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Milestone or date", "Deliverable", "Evidence", "Owner", "Dependency", "Review gate", "Exception", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 14, "prefix": "DAY", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "sales-development:M04:A01", "criterionIds": [ "M04-EC01", "M04-EC03", "M04-EC04" ], "inputIds": [ "M04-I01", "M04-I03", "M04-I04" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M04-I01, M04-I03, M04-I04).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M04-EC01, M04-EC03, M04-EC04) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M04-A02", "title": "Negative-path test checklist", "type": "checklist", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable negative-path test checklist from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Check ID", "Control or check", "Evidence required", "Source input ID", "Owner", "Result", "Exception or gap", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 2, "prefix": "04A02R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "sales-development:M04:A02", "criterionIds": [ "M04-EC02" ], "inputIds": [ "M04-I02" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M04-I02).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M04-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 Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] } ], "quantityContracts": [ { "artifactId": "M04-A01", "rowCount": 14, "rowPrefix": "DAY" }, { "artifactId": "M04-A02", "rowCount": 2, "rowPrefix": "04A02R" } ], "workedStarter": { "artifactId": "M04-A01", "criterionId": "M04-EC01", "inputId": "M04-I01", "supportedValue": "Eight contacts have explicit prior opt-outs.", "application": "Use the supplied timing condition as an anchor and mark any date, dependency, or completion claim not supplied. Cite M04-I01 (F05) in the row.", "boundary": "This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed fourteen-day cadence map or an operational result." }, "knownGap": { "artifactId": "M04-A01", "criterionId": "M04-EC01", "missingEvidence": "The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the fourteen-day cadence map.", "whyItMatters": "Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M04-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete.", "ownerRole": "Sales process owner", "boundedNextStep": "Record the missing evidence in M04-A01, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise.", "status": "Open — not supplied" }, "decisionPrompt": { "inputId": "M04-I04", "prompt": "What bounded decision can the Sales process owner make from M04-I04, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?" }, "instructionalGuide": { "version": "2026.09.01-academy-workbook-instruction-bank-1", "principalArtifactId": "M04-A01", "prerequisiteCheck": [ "Confirm the proposed fourteen-day cadence contains six emails, four calls, and two texts and lacks required operating controls.", "Preserve the eight explicit prior opt-outs and quarantine the nineteen unapproved personal mobile numbers; individual records are not supplied.", "No channel permission, schedule, activation, negative-path test, reply, referral, handoff, or outreach result is supplied." ], "operatingSteps": [ "Capture the proposed touch count, opt-out condition, unsupported mobile-source condition, and missing cadence controls with exact module input IDs.", "Map fourteen calendar days as a learner proposal, leaving exact send times and channel permissions pending.", "Add state-based stops for opt-out, reply, referral, disqualification, wrong contact, and accepted handoff before scheduling any touch.", "Define permitted-channel, weekday, time-window, spacing, owner, and escalation fields, marking all unsupplied policy decisions pending.", "Build negative-path tests for suppression, unsupported mobile data, wrong contact, reply, referral, and handoff without claiming execution.", "Route telephone, text, purchased-data, suppression, privacy, and jurisdiction questions to authorized legal or privacy review.", "Quality-check that every milestone has evidence, owner, dependency, gate, exception, and non-activation status." ], "fieldGuidance": { "Milestone or date": "Use Day 1 through Day 14 or a named preflight gate; label timing as proposed unless supplied.", "Deliverable": "Name the proposed touch, suppression check, reply review, referral stop, or handoff gate.", "Evidence": "Cite the applicable M04-Ixx input and distinguish a supplied condition from a learner-designed control.", "Owner": "Use Sales process owner and authorized legal or privacy reviewer; no individual operator is supplied.", "Dependency": "Record required channel permission, policy, suppression, source approval, recipient state, or capacity evidence.", "Review gate": "State the observable precondition for advancing, such as clear suppression and permitted channel.", "Exception": "Specify the stop, quarantine, or escalation path for opt-out, reply, referral, wrong contact, or unsupported data.", "Status": "Use Proposed, Blocked, Quarantine required, Review pending, or Not activated." }, "completedExampleRow": { "Milestone or date": "Day 1 preflight — proposed", "Deliverable": "Run suppression and contact-source review before any proposed first touch.", "Evidence": "M04-I01 (F05, confirmed: eight prior opt-outs); M04-I04 (F09, confirmed: control gaps)", "Owner": "Sales process owner and authorized legal or privacy reviewer", "Dependency": "Record identities, suppression output, permitted channel, timing policy, and reviewer decision: not supplied.", "Review gate": "Every selected record must clear current suppression, source, channel, and contact-state controls.", "Exception": "Any opt-out, reply, referral, wrong contact, disqualification, or accepted handoff stops the sequence.", "Status": "Learner proposal — not activated" }, "completedKnownGapRow": { "Milestone or date": "Text-message gate — date not supplied", "Deliverable": "Determine whether any text channel is permitted before including it in a cadence.", "Evidence": "M04-I02 (F06, confirmed: nineteen personal mobile numbers from an unapproved vendor)", "Owner": "Authorized legal or privacy reviewer and Sales process owner", "Dependency": "Affected records, approved source, channel permission, jurisdiction, consent evidence, policy, and review result: not supplied.", "Review gate": "Qualified reviewer documents permission and approved source before any text can be proposed for activation.", "Exception": "Quarantine unapproved mobile data; do not test or contact the number.", "Status": "Blocked — channel review required" }, "supportingArtifacts": [], "decisionRule": { "stop": "Stop activation when suppression, source approval, channel permission, timing, reply handling, referral stop, wrong-contact handling, or owner is missing.", "go": "Go to a tabletop negative-path review when all stops, gates, exceptions, ownership, and evidence-capture fields are documented.", "escalate": "Escalate telephone, text, purchased-data, privacy, consent, and jurisdiction-specific outreach questions to qualified reviewers." }, "completionTest": [ "The cadence represents fourteen days and supplied touch counts without treating timing or activation as approved.", "Opt-out, reply, referral, disqualification, wrong-contact, and accepted-handoff stops are explicit.", "The unapproved personal mobile data remains quarantined, and no test or outreach result is fabricated." ], "criterionSatisfiability": [ { "criterionId": "M04-EC01", "criterionOrdinal": 1, "criterionText": "Stops on opt-out, reply, referral, disqualification, and accepted handoff", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." }, { "criterionId": "M04-EC02", "criterionOrdinal": 2, "criterionText": "Defines permitted channels, timing, owner, and escalation", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." }, { "criterionId": "M04-EC03", "criterionOrdinal": 3, "criterionText": "Tests suppression and wrong-contact handling before activation", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." }, { "criterionId": "M04-EC04", "criterionOrdinal": 4, "criterionText": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." } ] } } }, { "module": 5, "title": "Define the handoff", "prompt": "Resolve the meeting-versus-evidence disagreement and design a two-way sales-to-specialist handoff.", "deliverable": "A qualification rubric, handoff record, and acceptance or rejection workflow.", "evidenceCriteria": [ "Separates fit, problem, process, stakeholder, timing, and next-step evidence", "Lets specialists reject incomplete handoffs with a reason code", "Avoids promising technical feasibility or approval before specialist review", "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" ], "taskMode": "bounded-case-starter", "providedInputs": [ { "id": "M05-I01", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F10" ], "confidence": "conflicting", "record": "Sales and delivery teams use different definitions of a qualified meeting." }, { "id": "M05-I02", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F11" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Delivery capacity is eight discovery calls per week with two technical specialists." }, { "id": "M05-B01", "kind": "case-brief", "sourceFactIds": [], "sourceRecordIds": [ "CB01" ], "confidence": "mixed", "record": "Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment." }, { "id": "M05-S01", "kind": "assignment-scope", "sourceFactIds": [ "F10", "F11" ], "confidence": "instruction", "record": "Build a starter version of “A qualification rubric, handoff record, and acceptance or rejection workflow.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it." } ], "completionBoundary": "Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, 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.", "starterSchema": { "id": "M05-W02", "title": "Define the handoff guided artifact-build sheet", "columns": [ "Component ID", "Requested artifact component", "Evidence criterion to test", "Supplied input IDs", "Supported entry", "Not-supplied gap or learner proposal", "Authorized owner or reviewer", "Status" ], "rows": [ { "id": "M05-A01", "component": "Qualification rubric", "criterion": "Separates fit, problem, process, stakeholder, timing, and next-step evidence | Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M05-I01" ] }, { "id": "M05-A02", "component": "Discovery handoff record", "criterion": "Lets specialists reject incomplete handoffs with a reason code", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M05-I02" ] }, { "id": "M05-A03", "component": "Acceptance-or-rejection workflow", "criterion": "Avoids promising technical feasibility or approval before specialist review", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M05-I01" ] } ] }, "workbookPlan": { "id": "M05-WP01", "version": "2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2", "contextInputIds": [ "M05-B01", "M05-S01" ], "criterionCatalog": [ { "id": "M05-EC01", "text": "Separates fit, problem, process, stakeholder, timing, and next-step evidence" }, { "id": "M05-EC02", "text": "Lets specialists reject incomplete handoffs with a reason code" }, { "id": "M05-EC03", "text": "Avoids promising technical feasibility or approval before specialist review" }, { "id": "M05-EC04", "text": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "M05-A01", "title": "Qualification rubric", "type": "matrix", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable qualification rubric from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Item ID", "Supported evidence", "Source input ID", "Criterion or required state", "Gap or learner proposal", "Owner or reviewer", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 2, "prefix": "05A01R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "sales-development:M05:A01", "criterionIds": [ "M05-EC01", "M05-EC04" ], "inputIds": [ "M05-I01" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M05-I01).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M05-EC01, M05-EC04) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M05-A02", "title": "Discovery handoff record", "type": "record", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable discovery handoff record from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Record ID", "Supported facts", "Source input ID", "Decision or action pending", "Owner or reviewer", "Evidence needed", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 2, "prefix": "05A02R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "sales-development:M05:A02", "criterionIds": [ "M05-EC02" ], "inputIds": [ "M05-I02" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M05-I02).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M05-EC02) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.", "Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.", "The Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M05-A03", "title": "Acceptance-or-rejection workflow", "type": "map", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable acceptance-or-rejection workflow from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Element", "From or trigger", "To or outcome", "Evidence and source ID", "Owner", "Open question", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 2, "prefix": "05A03R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "sales-development:M05:A03", "criterionIds": [ "M05-EC03" ], "inputIds": [ "M05-I01" ], "completionChecks": [ "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 Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] } ], "quantityContracts": [ { "artifactId": "M05-A01", "rowCount": 2, "rowPrefix": "05A01R" }, { "artifactId": "M05-A02", "rowCount": 2, "rowPrefix": "05A02R" }, { "artifactId": "M05-A03", "rowCount": 2, "rowPrefix": "05A03R" } ], "workedStarter": { "artifactId": "M05-A01", "criterionId": "M05-EC01", "inputId": "M05-I01", "supportedValue": "Sales and delivery teams use different definitions of a qualified meeting.", "application": "Place the supplied condition in the appropriate comparison row and leave every unsupplied requirement visibly open. Cite M05-I01 (F10) in the row.", "boundary": "This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed qualification rubric or an operational result." }, "knownGap": { "artifactId": "M05-A01", "criterionId": "M05-EC01", "missingEvidence": "The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the qualification rubric.", "whyItMatters": "Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M05-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete.", "ownerRole": "Sales process owner", "boundedNextStep": "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.", "status": "Open — not supplied" }, "decisionPrompt": { "inputId": "M05-I02", "prompt": "What bounded decision can the Sales process owner make from M05-I02, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?" }, "instructionalGuide": { "version": "2026.09.01-academy-workbook-instruction-bank-1", "principalArtifactId": "M05-A01", "prerequisiteCheck": [ "Confirm the qualification-definition conflict and the capacity of eight discovery calls per week with two technical specialists.", "No shared approved rubric, prospect record, accepted or rejected handoff, technical review, reason code, or result is supplied.", "Separate qualification evidence from technical feasibility or approval, which remains a specialist decision." ], "operatingSteps": [ "Capture the conflicting definitions and capacity constraint with exact module input IDs and confidence.", "Define distinct rubric dimensions for fit, problem, current process, stakeholder, timing or urgency, and agreed next step.", "For each dimension, specify observable evidence, allowed values, missing-evidence treatment, and reviewer.", "Create reason codes for rejected or returned handoffs, including missing problem, process, stakeholder, timing, next step, and capacity.", "Keep technical feasibility, safety, suitability, savings, and approval pending until an authorized specialist reviews actual evidence.", "Route the shared threshold, capacity allocation, rejection workflow, and any technical claim to Sales and delivery owners.", "Quality-check that the rubric preserves the conflict, makes incomplete handoffs rejectable, cites sources, and implies no acceptance." ], "fieldGuidance": { "Item ID": "Use a stable qualification-dimension identifier such as QUAL-01; never use an invented prospect record.", "Supported evidence": "Record the supplied definition conflict or capacity condition and preserve its confidence.", "Source input ID": "Cite M05-I01 for the conflict or M05-I02 only where the principal row explicitly discusses capacity.", "Criterion or required state": "State the observable fit, problem, process, stakeholder, timing, next-step, or review evidence required.", "Gap or learner proposal": "Mark the approved threshold, record evidence, reason codes, or decision not supplied and label rubric logic proposed.", "Owner or reviewer": "Use Sales process owner and delivery specialist lead; add authorized technical reviewer for feasibility claims.", "Status": "Use Conflict recorded, Learner proposal, Evidence missing, Specialist review required, or Approval pending." }, "completedExampleRow": { "Item ID": "QUAL-01", "Supported evidence": "Sales treats calendar acceptance as qualified, while delivery requires documented problem, current process, stakeholder, urgency, and agreed next step.", "Source input ID": "M05-I01 (F10, conflicting)", "Criterion or required state": "A shared qualification rule must separately record fit, problem, process, stakeholder, timing, and next-step evidence.", "Gap or learner proposal": "Authorized definition, field values, threshold, reason codes, prospect record, reviewer decision, and handoff result: not supplied.", "Owner or reviewer": "Sales process owner and delivery specialist lead", "Status": "Definition conflict — approval pending" }, "completedKnownGapRow": { "Item ID": "GAP-01", "Supported evidence": "No record-level technical, safety, product-fit, or savings evidence is supplied.", "Source input ID": "M05-I01 (F10, conflicting)", "Criterion or required state": "Technical feasibility and approval remain pending an authorized specialist review of actual evidence.", "Gap or learner proposal": "Prospect requirements, technical record, test evidence, specialist assignment, review, decision, and conditions: not supplied.", "Owner or reviewer": "Authorized technical specialist and delivery specialist lead", "Status": "Gap open — no technical promise" }, "supportingArtifacts": [], "decisionRule": { "stop": "Stop handoff when required evidence is missing, the shared definition remains unauthorized, capacity is unavailable, or technical approval is implied.", "go": "Go to specialist review when the agreed evidence fields are complete and unresolved questions remain explicitly pending.", "escalate": "Escalate qualification-definition, capacity, rejection, technical-feasibility, safety, and customer-outcome decisions to authorized owners." }, "completionTest": [ "The rubric separates all six evidence dimensions and preserves the supplied definition conflict.", "Incomplete handoffs can be returned with a reason code and without penalizing evidence-quality controls.", "No technical feasibility, specialist acceptance, approval, or prospect outcome is invented." ], "criterionSatisfiability": [ { "criterionId": "M05-EC01", "criterionOrdinal": 1, "criterionText": "Separates fit, problem, process, stakeholder, timing, and next-step evidence", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." }, { "criterionId": "M05-EC02", "criterionOrdinal": 2, "criterionText": "Lets specialists reject incomplete handoffs with a reason code", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." }, { "criterionId": "M05-EC03", "criterionOrdinal": 3, "criterionText": "Avoids promising technical feasibility or approval before specialist review", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." }, { "criterionId": "M05-EC04", "criterionOrdinal": 4, "criterionText": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." } ] } } }, { "module": 6, "title": "Measure learning and harm", "prompt": "Build a scorecard that supports pilot decisions without rewarding uncontrolled volume.", "deliverable": "A metric dictionary, weekly review agenda, and stop-or-adjust thresholds.", "evidenceCriteria": [ "Includes relevant replies, accepted handoffs, opt-outs, complaints, wrong contacts, and downstream outcomes", "Defines population, period, source, owner, and action for each metric", "Predeclares conditions for continuing, revising, or stopping the pilot", "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" ], "taskMode": "bounded-case-starter", "providedInputs": [ { "id": "M06-I01", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F01" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "The pilot covers 120 companies in Utah and neighboring states over four weeks." }, { "id": "M06-I02", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F02" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Seventy-four accounts meet three fit indicators, twenty-eight meet two, and eighteen lack a traceable trigger." }, { "id": "M06-I03", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F04" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Twelve contacts have left their listed employer." }, { "id": "M06-I04", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F05" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Eight contacts have explicit prior opt-outs." }, { "id": "M06-I05", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F06" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Nineteen personal mobile numbers came from an unapproved vendor." }, { "id": "M06-I06", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F10" ], "confidence": "conflicting", "record": "Sales and delivery teams use different definitions of a qualified meeting." }, { "id": "M06-I07", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F11" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "Delivery capacity is eight discovery calls per week with two technical specialists." }, { "id": "M06-I08", "kind": "case-fact", "sourceFactIds": [ "F12" ], "confidence": "confirmed", "record": "The approved pilot budget ceiling is $6,000." }, { "id": "M06-B01", "kind": "case-brief", "sourceFactIds": [], "sourceRecordIds": [ "CB01" ], "confidence": "mixed", "record": "Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment." }, { "id": "M06-S01", "kind": "assignment-scope", "sourceFactIds": [ "F01", "F02", "F04", "F05", "F06", "F10", "F11", "F12" ], "confidence": "instruction", "record": "Build a starter version of “A metric dictionary, weekly review agenda, and stop-or-adjust thresholds.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it." } ], "completionBoundary": "Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F01, F02, F04, F05, F06, F10, F11, F12, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.", "starterSchema": { "id": "M06-W02", "title": "Measure learning and harm guided artifact-build sheet", "columns": [ "Component ID", "Requested artifact component", "Evidence criterion to test", "Supplied input IDs", "Supported entry", "Not-supplied gap or learner proposal", "Authorized owner or reviewer", "Status" ], "rows": [ { "id": "M06-A01", "component": "Sales metric dictionary", "criterion": "Includes relevant replies, accepted handoffs, opt-outs, complaints, wrong contacts, and downstream outcomes | Defines population, period, source, owner, and action for each metric | Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M06-I03", "M06-I04", "M06-I05", "M06-I06" ] }, { "id": "M06-A02", "component": "Weekly review agenda", "criterion": "Defines population, period, source, owner, and action for each metric", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M06-I02", "M06-I07" ] }, { "id": "M06-A03", "component": "Stop-or-adjust threshold register", "criterion": "Predeclares conditions for continuing, revising, or stopping the pilot", "suppliedInputIds": [ "M06-I01", "M06-I08" ] } ] }, "workbookPlan": { "id": "M06-WP01", "version": "2026.09.01-workbook-plan-2", "contextInputIds": [ "M06-B01", "M06-S01" ], "criterionCatalog": [ { "id": "M06-EC01", "text": "Includes relevant replies, accepted handoffs, opt-outs, complaints, wrong contacts, and downstream outcomes" }, { "id": "M06-EC02", "text": "Defines population, period, source, owner, and action for each metric" }, { "id": "M06-EC03", "text": "Predeclares conditions for continuing, revising, or stopping the pilot" }, { "id": "M06-EC04", "text": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them" } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "M06-A01", "title": "Sales metric dictionary", "type": "dictionary", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable sales metric dictionary from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Term or field", "Definition", "Allowed values or rule", "Evidence source", "Owner", "Change trigger", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 2, "prefix": "06A01R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "sales-development:M06:A01", "criterionIds": [ "M06-EC01", "M06-EC02", "M06-EC04" ], "inputIds": [ "M06-I03", "M06-I04", "M06-I05", "M06-I06" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M06-I03, M06-I04, M06-I05, M06-I06).", "Every mapped rubric criterion (M06-EC01, M06-EC02, 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 Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M06-A02", "title": "Weekly review agenda", "type": "plan", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable weekly review agenda from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Step or milestone", "Trigger or date", "Evidence and source ID", "Owner", "Gate or threshold", "Dependency or gap", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 2, "prefix": "06A02R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "sales-development:M06:A02", "criterionIds": [ "M06-EC02" ], "inputIds": [ "M06-I02", "M06-I07" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M06-I02, M06-I07).", "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 Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] }, { "id": "M06-A03", "title": "Stop-or-adjust threshold register", "type": "register", "purpose": "Produce a bounded, reviewable stop-or-adjust threshold register from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.", "instructions": "Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”", "columns": [ "Entry ID", "Issue or event", "Evidence and source ID", "Risk or impact", "Owner", "Bounded next step", "Review point", "Status" ], "rowPlan": { "count": 2, "prefix": "06A03R", "blankState": "Not supplied / learner to complete" }, "reviewedMappingId": "sales-development:M06:A03", "criterionIds": [ "M06-EC03" ], "inputIds": [ "M06-I01", "M06-I08" ], "completionChecks": [ "Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M06-I01, M06-I08).", "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 Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied." ] } ], "quantityContracts": [ { "artifactId": "M06-A01", "rowCount": 2, "rowPrefix": "06A01R" }, { "artifactId": "M06-A02", "rowCount": 2, "rowPrefix": "06A02R" }, { "artifactId": "M06-A03", "rowCount": 2, "rowPrefix": "06A03R" } ], "workedStarter": { "artifactId": "M06-A01", "criterionId": "M06-EC01", "inputId": "M06-I03", "supportedValue": "Twelve contacts have left their listed employer.", "application": "Use the supplied term or condition to draft one definition while marking allowed values and approval status provisional. Cite M06-I03 (F04) in the row.", "boundary": "This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed sales metric dictionary or an operational result." }, "knownGap": { "artifactId": "M06-A01", "criterionId": "M06-EC01", "missingEvidence": "The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the sales metric dictionary.", "whyItMatters": "Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M06-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete.", "ownerRole": "Sales process owner", "boundedNextStep": "Record the missing evidence in M06-A01, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise.", "status": "Open — not supplied" }, "decisionPrompt": { "inputId": "M06-I08", "prompt": "What bounded decision can the Sales process owner make from M06-I08, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?" }, "instructionalGuide": { "version": "2026.09.01-academy-workbook-instruction-bank-1", "principalArtifactId": "M06-A01", "prerequisiteCheck": [ "Confirm the supplied pilot scope, fit tiers, contact-quality conditions, qualification conflict, capacity, and budget ceiling.", "No replies, complaints, wrong-contact events, accepted handoffs, revenue, customer outcomes, weekly results, or approved thresholds are supplied.", "Define metric population, period, source, owner, and action before entering any calculated rate." ], "operatingSteps": [ "Capture each supplied baseline or risk condition with its module input ID, confidence, and limitation.", "Define separate metrics for relevant replies, accepted handoffs, opt-outs, complaints, wrong contacts, downstream outcomes, capacity use, and spend.", "For every metric, specify population, numerator, denominator, period, source, owner, refresh, and action; mark all operational values not supplied.", "Preserve the qualification-definition conflict so accepted-handoff counts cannot be interpreted until Sales and delivery align the rule.", "Design a weekly review agenda that compares evidence quality, recipient harm signals, specialist capacity, and budget rather than rewarding volume alone.", "Predeclare learner-proposed continue, adjust, stop, and escalate conditions without claiming thresholds are approved.", "Quality-check metric definitions, source traceability, denominator integrity, decision actions, gaps, and absence of fabricated pilot results." ], "fieldGuidance": { "Term or field": "Name one decision-relevant metric such as opt-out rate, wrong-contact rate, accepted-handoff rate, or downstream outcome.", "Definition": "State the exact event, population, numerator, denominator, and period; avoid vague activity labels.", "Allowed values or rule": "Define valid values and learner-proposed handling for unknown, duplicate, conflicting, or pending events.", "Evidence source": "Cite the exact supplied M06-Ixx input for baseline conditions; operational event records remain not supplied.", "Owner": "Use Sales process owner, delivery specialist lead, privacy reviewer, or budget owner as appropriate.", "Change trigger": "State the proposed observation that causes continuation, adjustment, stop, or escalation; do not imply approval.", "Status": "Use Definition proposed, Baseline supplied, Operational value not supplied, Conflict open, or Approval pending." }, "completedExampleRow": { "Term or field": "Opt-out rate", "Definition": "Explicit opt-out events divided by contacts reached during the defined weekly review period; no outreach population or weekly events are supplied.", "Allowed values or rule": "0–100 percent only when numerator, denominator, deduplication, period, and suppression event records are complete; otherwise Unknown.", "Evidence source": "M06-I04 (F05, confirmed: eight prior opt-outs are a baseline exclusion, not a pilot rate)", "Owner": "Sales process owner and authorized privacy reviewer", "Change trigger": "Learner proposal: any missed suppression is an immediate stop-and-escalate event; approved threshold not supplied.", "Status": "Definition proposed — operational value not supplied" }, "completedKnownGapRow": { "Term or field": "Accepted-handoff rate", "Definition": "Accepted discovery handoffs divided by reviewed handoffs in a stated period under one authorized qualification definition.", "Allowed values or rule": "Do not calculate while Sales and delivery definitions conflict or while record-level decisions are absent.", "Evidence source": "M06-I06 (F10, conflicting)", "Owner": "Sales process owner and delivery specialist lead", "Change trigger": "Shared definition, complete handoff records, reviewer decisions, period, and action threshold: not supplied.", "Status": "Gap open — metric blocked" }, "supportingArtifacts": [], "decisionRule": { "stop": "Stop decision use when metric population, numerator, denominator, period, source, owner, action, or shared definition is missing.", "go": "Go to bounded weekly review when balanced value, harm, capacity, and budget measures are defined and gaps remain visible.", "escalate": "Escalate complaints, suppression failures, qualification conflicts, capacity overload, budget exceptions, and threshold approval to authorized owners." }, "completionTest": [ "The dictionary includes relevant replies, accepted handoffs, opt-outs, complaints, wrong contacts, and downstream outcomes.", "Each metric has population, period, source, owner, and action or an explicit not-supplied gap.", "Continue, adjust, stop, and escalate logic is proposed before use, with no fabricated pilot result or approval." ], "criterionSatisfiability": [ { "criterionId": "M06-EC01", "criterionOrdinal": 1, "criterionText": "Includes relevant replies, accepted handoffs, opt-outs, complaints, wrong contacts, and downstream outcomes", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." }, { "criterionId": "M06-EC02", "criterionOrdinal": 2, "criterionText": "Defines population, period, source, owner, and action for each metric", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." }, { "criterionId": "M06-EC03", "criterionOrdinal": 3, "criterionText": "Predeclares conditions for continuing, revising, or stopping the pilot", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." }, { "criterionId": "M06-EC04", "criterionOrdinal": 4, "criterionText": "Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them", "currentSatisfiable": true, "afterProposedRepairsSatisfiable": true, "finding": "Satisfiable from the module’s scoped inputs when unavailable operational evidence is explicitly recorded as not supplied and review remains pending." } ] } } } ], "ambiguities": [ { "issue": "The internal demonstration indicates some improvement but does not support the forty-percent customer claim.", "judgmentRequired": "Decide whether to omit a number, qualify the limited evidence, or run a stronger test before outreach.", "doNotAssume": "Do not extrapolate one controlled demonstration to customer savings or guaranteed results." }, { "issue": "A calendar acceptance may indicate interest but may not establish problem, authority, or a useful technical handoff.", "judgmentRequired": "Set a threshold that protects specialist capacity while permitting early discovery when uncertainty is explicit.", "doNotAssume": "Do not select the definition solely because it raises the meeting or qualification rate." } ], "debrief": { "principle": "There is no single universal cadence or qualification threshold. Strong work aligns evidence, recipient respect, law and policy review, capacity, and learning goals.", "moduleGuides": [ { "module": 1, "reasoning": "A smaller evidence-backed cohort is more useful than a larger arbitrary list. Ranking should be reproducible and preserve uncertainty rather than convert missing triggers into fit.", "strongEvidence": [ "Traceable fit and exclusion rules", "Capacity-aware cohort count" ] }, { "module": 2, "reasoning": "Buying roles are hypotheses until verified. Research should use business-relevant sources and minimize personal data, particularly when prior choice or source approval is missing.", "strongEvidence": [ "Dated role sources", "Suppression and source-approval record" ] }, { "module": 3, "reasoning": "The message can discuss a limited demonstration if its scope is clear, but it cannot promise a larger outcome. Relevance and an easy correction path are stronger than exaggerated certainty.", "strongEvidence": [ "Claim-to-source ledger", "Approved wording with limitations" ] }, { "module": 4, "reasoning": "Cadence intensity should be bounded by policy, channel rules, recipient response, and monitoring. More touches are not automatically better and can increase risk and complaints.", "strongEvidence": [ "State-based stop logic", "Negative-path test results" ] }, { "module": 5, "reasoning": "A useful handoff captures verified context and unresolved questions. Different thresholds may work, but the design must protect specialist capacity and never imply unearned technical approval.", "strongEvidence": [ "Observable qualification rubric", "Acceptance and rejection feedback loop" ] }, { "module": 6, "reasoning": "Metrics should show value and recipient impact. High activity with poor fit, complaints, or rejected handoffs is evidence to change the system, not celebrate effort.", "strongEvidence": [ "Balanced metric definitions", "Predeclared action thresholds" ] } ], "specialistEscalations": [ { "trigger": "Channel consent, telephone or text outreach, suppression, privacy, purchased data, or jurisdiction-specific marketing rules", "specialist": "Qualified legal or privacy reviewer and the organization's compliance owner", "boundary": "The learner designs operational controls but does not determine legal permission from this case." }, { "trigger": "Technical performance, product suitability, safety, or customer-specific savings claims", "specialist": "Authorized technical specialist and claims reviewer", "boundary": "Sales-development material cannot guarantee or approve technical outcomes." } ] }, "caseBriefId": "CB01" }