# ClearBench ethical outbound pilot — evidence-and-artifact workbook

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

**Case brief record:** CB01

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.

## How to use this workbook

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

## Module 1 — Prioritize the account field

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

**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.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M01-I01 | case-fact | F01 | The pilot covers 120 companies in Utah and neighboring states over four weeks. | |
| M01-I02 | case-fact | F02 | Seventy-four accounts meet three fit indicators, twenty-eight meet two, and eighteen lack a traceable trigger. | |
| M01-I03 | case-fact | F04 | Twelve contacts have left their listed employer. | |
| M01-I04 | case-fact | F05 | Eight contacts have explicit prior opt-outs. | |
| M01-I05 | case-fact | F06 | Nineteen personal mobile numbers came from an unapproved vendor. | |
| M01-I06 | case-fact | F11 | Delivery capacity is eight discovery calls per week with two technical specialists. | |
| M01-I07 | case-fact | F12 | The approved pilot budget ceiling is $6,000. | |
| M01-B01 | case-brief | CB01 | Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment. | |
| M01-S01 | assignment-scope | F01, F02, F04, F05, F06, F11, F12 | 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. | |

### Completion boundary

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.

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] 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.

### Operating procedure

1. Capture the pilot scope, aggregate fit-tier counts, stale-contact count, opt-out count, capacity, and budget ceiling with their exact module input IDs.
2. Create a separate table row for the three-indicator, two-indicator, and no-traceable-trigger account tiers without inventing company identities.
3. Define the required state for each tier: traceable fit evidence, current trigger, approved contact source, suppression result, and capacity allocation.
4. Rank the aggregate tiers by evidence strength while leaving record-level inclusion and exclusion decisions pending.
5. 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.
6. Route stale-record, opt-out, unsupported-source, budget, and final cohort decisions to the Sales process owner and authorized privacy reviewer.
7. Quality-check counts, source IDs, missing-record labels, capacity logic, and status language before any bounded pilot recommendation.

### Field-by-field guidance — M01-A01

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

### Completed supported example — M01-A01

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

| Item ID | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Criterion or required state | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| TIER-01 | Seventy-four accounts meet all three fit indicators within a four-week field of 120 companies. | M01-I01 (F01, confirmed); M01-I02 (F02, confirmed) | Prioritize the strongest aggregate fit tier while preserving record-level verification and delivery capacity. | Account identities, individual indicator evidence, trigger dates, approved contacts, suppression results, and selected cohort: not supplied. | Sales process owner and authorized privacy reviewer | Aggregate evidence — record review pending |

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

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

| Item ID | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Criterion or required state | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| GAP-01 | Eighteen accounts lack a traceable trigger; individual records are not supplied. | M01-I02 (F02, confirmed) | Require a current, traceable business trigger before record-level inclusion. | Company identities, attempted source checks, source dates, trigger evidence, and authorized disposition: not supplied. | Sales process owner | Gap open — do not include by assumption |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M01-A02 · Record-level account-selection log** — Produce a bounded, reviewable record-level account-selection log from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M01-I05, M01-I07 and address M01-EC02. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

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

### Stop / Go / Escalate

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

### Completion test

- [ ] 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.

### Secondary evidence-trace crosswalk

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

#### Legacy worked-starter trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Input | Supported value | How to use it | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M01-A01 | M01-EC01 | M01-I01 (F01) | The pilot covers 120 companies in Utah and neighboring states over four weeks. | Place the supplied condition in the appropriate comparison row and leave every unsupplied requirement visibly open. Cite M01-I01 (F01) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed aggregate fit-tier prioritization table or an operational result. |

#### Legacy known-gap trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M01-A01 | M01-EC01 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the aggregate fit-tier prioritization table. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M01-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete. | Sales process owner | Record the missing evidence in M01-A01, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise. | Open — not supplied |

### Decision prompt

**M01-I07:** 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?

### Artifact-build tables

### M01-A01 · Aggregate fit-tier prioritization table

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable aggregate fit-tier prioritization table from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M01-I01, M01-I02, M01-I03, M01-I04, M01-I06

**Instructions:** Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M01-EC01:** Explains why each aggregate tier fits, fails, or lacks the defined profile evidence
- **M01-EC03:** Keeps proposed outreach volume within the supplied discovery and delivery capacity
- **M01-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

| Item ID | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Criterion or required state | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 01A01R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 01A01R-02 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### M01-A02 · Record-level account-selection log

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable record-level account-selection log from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M01-I05, M01-I07

**Instructions:** Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M01-EC02:** Shows how stale, opted-out, and unsupported records would be excluded or quarantined without claiming individual account review

| Entry ID | Issue or event | Evidence and source ID | Risk or impact | Owner | Bounded next step | Review point | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 01A02R-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 01A02R-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M01-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.

### Artifact coverage map

| Artifact | Expected rows | Mapped criteria | Scoped case-fact inputs |
|---|---:|---|---|
| M01-A01 · Aggregate fit-tier prioritization table | 2 | M01-EC01, M01-EC03, M01-EC04 | M01-I01, M01-I02, M01-I03, M01-I04, M01-I06 |
| M01-A02 · Record-level account-selection log | 2 | M01-EC02 | M01-I05, M01-I07 |

### Decision and revision record

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

### Evidence-criteria checklist

- [ ] **M01-EC01:** Explains why each aggregate tier fits, fails, or lacks the defined profile evidence
- [ ] **M01-EC02:** Shows how stale, opted-out, and unsupported records would be excluded or quarantined without claiming individual account review
- [ ] **M01-EC03:** Keeps proposed outreach volume within the supplied discovery and delivery capacity
- [ ] **M01-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

### Self-review note

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

## Module 2 — Map buying roles

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

**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.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M02-I01 | case-fact | F03 | The field contains 162 contacts across five role groupings. | |
| M02-I02 | case-fact | F04 | Twelve contacts have left their listed employer. | |
| M02-I03 | case-fact | F05 | Eight contacts have explicit prior opt-outs. | |
| M02-I04 | case-fact | F06 | Nineteen personal mobile numbers came from an unapproved vendor. | |
| M02-B01 | case-brief | CB01 | Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment. | |
| M02-S01 | assignment-scope | F03, F04, F05, F06 | 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. | |

### Completion boundary

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.

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] 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.

### Operating procedure

1. Capture the aggregate five-role population and each contact-quality constraint with exact module input IDs.
2. Create five hypothesis rows for user, evaluator, approver, procurement, and blocker, labeling each as a proposed buying role rather than a verified person.
3. For every role, state the business question it may answer and the current-business-source evidence required for verification.
4. Include source URL or document, source date, observed role evidence, confidence, suppression result, and reviewer in the proposed verification design.
5. Quarantine departed-employer records, preserve explicit prior opt-outs, and reject unapproved personal mobile data from the proposed process.
6. Route individual role assignment and contact-permission decisions to the Sales process owner and authorized privacy reviewer.
7. Quality-check that every role remains hypothetical, every missing record is visible, and no personal data, outreach, or verification result is fabricated.

### Field-by-field guidance — M02-A01

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

### Completed supported example — M02-A01

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

| Item ID | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Criterion or required state | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ROLE-01 | The field contains 162 contacts across five role groupings. | M02-I01 (F03, confirmed) | User-role hypothesis requires current business-source evidence of hands-on inspection-workstation use or process ownership. | Contact identity, employer, source, source date, observed evidence, confidence, and verification result: not supplied. | Sales process owner and authorized privacy reviewer | Hypothesis only — individual verification pending |

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

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

| Item ID | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Criterion or required state | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| GAP-01 | Nineteen personal mobile numbers came from an unapproved vendor. | M02-I04 (F06, confirmed) | Use only approved, business-relevant sources and preserve permission and suppression controls. | Affected record identities, vendor approval, lawful basis, source dates, and authorized disposition: not supplied; learner proposes quarantine. | Authorized privacy reviewer and Sales process owner | Quarantine required — no use permitted |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M02-A02 · Contact-verification log** — Produce a bounded, reviewable contact-verification log from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M02-I02, M02-I03, M02-I04 and address M02-EC02, M02-EC03. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

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

### Stop / Go / Escalate

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

### Completion test

- [ ] 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.

### Secondary evidence-trace crosswalk

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

#### Legacy worked-starter trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Input | Supported value | How to use it | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M02-A01 | M02-EC01 | M02-I01 (F03) | The field contains 162 contacts across five role groupings. | Place the supplied condition in the appropriate comparison row and leave every unsupplied requirement visibly open. Cite M02-I01 (F03) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed five-group buying-role hypothesis map or an operational result. |

#### Legacy known-gap trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M02-A01 | M02-EC01 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the five-group buying-role hypothesis map. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M02-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete. | Sales process owner | Record the missing evidence in M02-A01, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise. | Open — not supplied |

### Decision prompt

**M02-I04:** 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?

### Artifact-build tables

### M02-A01 · Five-group buying-role hypothesis map

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable five-group buying-role hypothesis map from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M02-I01

**Instructions:** Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M02-EC01:** Distinguishes user, evaluator, approver, procurement, and blocker as hypotheses rather than verified people

| Item ID | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Criterion or required state | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ROLE-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| ROLE-02 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| ROLE-03 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| ROLE-04 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| ROLE-05 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### M02-A02 · Contact-verification log

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

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M02-I02, M02-I03, M02-I04

**Instructions:** Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M02-EC02:** Includes fields for source date and confidence while marking individual source records not supplied
- **M02-EC03:** Rejects unapproved personal mobile data and preserves prior opt-outs in the proposed verification process

| Entry ID | Issue or event | Evidence and source ID | Risk or impact | Owner | Bounded next step | Review point | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 02A02R-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 02A02R-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M02-I02, 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.

### Artifact coverage map

| Artifact | Expected rows | Mapped criteria | Scoped case-fact inputs |
|---|---:|---|---|
| M02-A01 · Five-group buying-role hypothesis map | 5 | M02-EC01 | M02-I01 |
| M02-A02 · Contact-verification log | 2 | M02-EC02, M02-EC03 | M02-I02, M02-I03, M02-I04 |

### Decision and revision record

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

### Evidence-criteria checklist

- [ ] **M02-EC01:** Distinguishes user, evaluator, approver, procurement, and blocker as hypotheses rather than verified people
- [ ] **M02-EC02:** Includes fields for source date and confidence while marking individual source records not supplied
- [ ] **M02-EC03:** Rejects unapproved personal mobile data and preserves prior opt-outs in the proposed verification process

### Self-review note

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

## Module 3 — Write a supportable message

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

**Prompt:** Replace the unsupported savings claim with a relevant, testable value hypothesis.

**Deliverable:** Two message variants with claim ledger and review notes.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M03-I01 | case-fact | F02 | Seventy-four accounts meet three fit indicators, twenty-eight meet two, and eighteen lack a traceable trigger. | |
| M03-I02 | case-fact | F07 | The draft promises forty-percent time savings while the only internal test measured seventeen percent. | |
| M03-B01 | case-brief | CB01 | Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment. | |
| M03-S01 | assignment-scope | F02, F07 | 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. | |

### Completion boundary

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.

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] 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.

### Operating procedure

1. Capture each potential message fact with its exact module input ID, confidence, scope, and missing context.
2. Separate audience relevance from performance claims; aggregate fit counts do not establish that any named account fits.
3. Draft a bounded relevance sentence that requests correction and does not imply false familiarity or verified account-specific knowledge.
4. Place the 40-percent promise and 17-percent internal demonstration in the claim ledger, preserving their conflict and controlled-test limitation.
5. Prohibit guarantees, urgency, customer savings, external proof, and extrapolation until stronger evidence and authorized wording are supplied.
6. Route any numeric or technical performance language to the authorized technical claims reviewer before activation.
7. Quality-check source traceability, limitation language, correction path, tone, prohibited claims, review status, and absence of live sending.

### Field-by-field guidance — M03-A01

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

### Completed supported example — M03-A01

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

| Draft ID | Audience and purpose | Supported facts | Proposed wording | Prohibited or unsupported claim | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| MSG-01 | Operations-role hypothesis; ask whether repeat inspection work is a current priority. | Aggregate field includes 74 accounts meeting three fit indicators; account-specific identity and fit evidence: not supplied. | 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.” | Do not say the recipient is verified to fit or that ClearBench will reduce inspection time by 40 percent. | Sales process owner and authorized technical claims reviewer | Learner draft — not approved for sending |

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

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

| Draft ID | Audience and purpose | Supported facts | Proposed wording | Prohibited or unsupported claim | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| GAP-01 | Any account-specific outreach message. | No account identity, current trigger, recipient role, or source record is supplied in this module. | Not supplied; keep the account-specific message pending. | False familiarity, verified fit, guaranteed savings, unqualified urgency, customer result, or technical approval. | Sales process owner, authorized technical claims reviewer, and privacy reviewer | Gap open — no live message |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M03-A02 · Message claim ledger** — Produce a bounded, reviewable message claim ledger from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M03-I02 and address M03-EC02. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”
2. **M03-A03 · Message review notes** — Produce a bounded, reviewable message review notes from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 1 row from M03-I01 and address M03-EC03. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

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

### Stop / Go / Escalate

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

### Completion test

- [ ] 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.

### Secondary evidence-trace crosswalk

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

#### Legacy worked-starter trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Input | Supported value | How to use it | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M03-A01 | M03-EC01 | M03-I01 (F02) | Seventy-four accounts meet three fit indicators, twenty-eight meet two, and eighteen lack a traceable trigger. | Translate the supplied condition into bounded draft language while excluding unsupported promises, outcomes, or approvals. Cite M03-I01 (F02) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed supportable message variants or an operational result. |

#### Legacy known-gap trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M03-A01 | M03-EC01 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the supportable message variants. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M03-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete. | Sales process owner | Record the missing evidence in M03-A01, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise. | Open — not supplied |

### Decision prompt

**M03-I02:** What bounded decision can the Sales process owner make from M03-I02, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?

### Artifact-build tables

### M03-A01 · Supportable message variants

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

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M03-I01

**Instructions:** Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M03-EC01:** Uses only approved business signals and source-backed statements
- **M03-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

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

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M03-I01).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M03-EC01, M03-EC04) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### M03-A02 · Message claim ledger

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

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

**Instructions:** Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M03-EC02:** Labels the seventeen-percent demonstration as limited internal evidence

| Entry ID | Issue or event | Evidence and source ID | Risk or impact | Owner | Bounded next step | Review point | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 03A02R-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 03A02R-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M03-I02).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M03-EC02) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### M03-A03 · Message review notes

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

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M03-I01

**Instructions:** Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M03-EC03:** Invites correction and avoids urgency, guarantee, or false familiarity

| Section | Supported statement | Source input ID | Assumption or gap | Decision requested | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 03A03R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M03-I01).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M03-EC03) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### Artifact coverage map

| Artifact | Expected rows | Mapped criteria | Scoped case-fact inputs |
|---|---:|---|---|
| M03-A01 · Supportable message variants | 2 | M03-EC01, M03-EC04 | M03-I01 |
| M03-A02 · Message claim ledger | 2 | M03-EC02 | M03-I02 |
| M03-A03 · Message review notes | 1 | M03-EC03 | M03-I01 |

### Decision and revision record

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

### Evidence-criteria checklist

- [ ] **M03-EC01:** Uses only approved business signals and source-backed statements
- [ ] **M03-EC02:** Labels the seventeen-percent demonstration as limited internal evidence
- [ ] **M03-EC03:** Invites correction and avoids urgency, guarantee, or false familiarity
- [ ] **M03-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

### Self-review note

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

## Module 4 — Control the cadence

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

**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.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M04-I01 | case-fact | F05 | Eight contacts have explicit prior opt-outs. | |
| M04-I02 | case-fact | F06 | Nineteen personal mobile numbers came from an unapproved vendor. | |
| M04-I03 | case-fact | F08 | The proposed fourteen-day cadence includes six emails, four calls, and two texts. | |
| M04-I04 | case-fact | F09 | The cadence has no documented channel review, weekend rule, reply handling, or referral stop condition. | |
| M04-B01 | case-brief | CB01 | Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment. | |
| M04-S01 | assignment-scope | F05, F06, F08, F09 | 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. | |

### Completion boundary

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.

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] 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.

### Operating procedure

1. Capture the proposed touch count, opt-out condition, unsupported mobile-source condition, and missing cadence controls with exact module input IDs.
2. Map fourteen calendar days as a learner proposal, leaving exact send times and channel permissions pending.
3. Add state-based stops for opt-out, reply, referral, disqualification, wrong contact, and accepted handoff before scheduling any touch.
4. Define permitted-channel, weekday, time-window, spacing, owner, and escalation fields, marking all unsupplied policy decisions pending.
5. Build negative-path tests for suppression, unsupported mobile data, wrong contact, reply, referral, and handoff without claiming execution.
6. Route telephone, text, purchased-data, suppression, privacy, and jurisdiction questions to authorized legal or privacy review.
7. Quality-check that every milestone has evidence, owner, dependency, gate, exception, and non-activation status.

### Field-by-field guidance — M04-A01

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

### Completed supported example — M04-A01

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

| Milestone or date | Deliverable | Evidence | Owner | Dependency | Review gate | Exception | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Day 1 preflight — proposed | Run suppression and contact-source review before any proposed first touch. | M04-I01 (F05, confirmed: eight prior opt-outs); M04-I04 (F09, confirmed: control gaps) | Sales process owner and authorized legal or privacy reviewer | Record identities, suppression output, permitted channel, timing policy, and reviewer decision: not supplied. | Every selected record must clear current suppression, source, channel, and contact-state controls. | Any opt-out, reply, referral, wrong contact, disqualification, or accepted handoff stops the sequence. | Learner proposal — not activated |

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

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

| Milestone or date | Deliverable | Evidence | Owner | Dependency | Review gate | Exception | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Text-message gate — date not supplied | Determine whether any text channel is permitted before including it in a cadence. | M04-I02 (F06, confirmed: nineteen personal mobile numbers from an unapproved vendor) | Authorized legal or privacy reviewer and Sales process owner | Affected records, approved source, channel permission, jurisdiction, consent evidence, policy, and review result: not supplied. | Qualified reviewer documents permission and approved source before any text can be proposed for activation. | Quarantine unapproved mobile data; do not test or contact the number. | Blocked — channel review required |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M04-A02 · Negative-path test checklist** — Produce a bounded, reviewable negative-path test checklist from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M04-I02 and address M04-EC02. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

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

### Stop / Go / Escalate

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

### Completion test

- [ ] 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.

### Secondary evidence-trace crosswalk

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

#### Legacy worked-starter trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Input | Supported value | How to use it | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M04-A01 | M04-EC01 | M04-I01 (F05) | Eight contacts have explicit prior opt-outs. | 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. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed fourteen-day cadence map or an operational result. |

#### Legacy known-gap trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M04-A01 | M04-EC01 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the fourteen-day cadence map. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M04-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete. | Sales process owner | Record the missing evidence in M04-A01, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise. | Open — not supplied |

### Decision prompt

**M04-I04:** What bounded decision can the Sales process owner make from M04-I04, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?

### Artifact-build tables

### M04-A01 · Fourteen-day cadence map

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable fourteen-day cadence map from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M04-I01, M04-I03, M04-I04

**Instructions:** Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M04-EC01:** Stops on opt-out, reply, referral, disqualification, and accepted handoff
- **M04-EC03:** Tests suppression and wrong-contact handling before activation
- **M04-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

| Milestone or date | Deliverable | Evidence | Owner | Dependency | Review gate | Exception | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| DAY-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| DAY-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| DAY-03 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| DAY-04 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| DAY-05 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| DAY-06 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| DAY-07 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| DAY-08 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| DAY-09 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| DAY-10 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| DAY-11 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| DAY-12 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| DAY-13 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| DAY-14 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### M04-A02 · Negative-path test checklist

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable negative-path test checklist from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

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

**Instructions:** Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M04-EC02:** Defines permitted channels, timing, owner, and escalation

| Check ID | Control or check | Evidence required | Source input ID | Owner | Result | Exception or gap | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 04A02R-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 04A02R-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M04-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.

### Artifact coverage map

| Artifact | Expected rows | Mapped criteria | Scoped case-fact inputs |
|---|---:|---|---|
| M04-A01 · Fourteen-day cadence map | 14 | M04-EC01, M04-EC03, M04-EC04 | M04-I01, M04-I03, M04-I04 |
| M04-A02 · Negative-path test checklist | 2 | M04-EC02 | M04-I02 |

### Decision and revision record

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

### Evidence-criteria checklist

- [ ] **M04-EC01:** Stops on opt-out, reply, referral, disqualification, and accepted handoff
- [ ] **M04-EC02:** Defines permitted channels, timing, owner, and escalation
- [ ] **M04-EC03:** Tests suppression and wrong-contact handling before activation
- [ ] **M04-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

### Self-review note

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

## Module 5 — Define the handoff

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

**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.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M05-I01 | case-fact | F10 | Sales and delivery teams use different definitions of a qualified meeting. | |
| M05-I02 | case-fact | F11 | Delivery capacity is eight discovery calls per week with two technical specialists. | |
| M05-B01 | case-brief | CB01 | Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment. | |
| M05-S01 | assignment-scope | F10, F11 | 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. | |

### Completion boundary

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.

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] 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.

### Operating procedure

1. Capture the conflicting definitions and capacity constraint with exact module input IDs and confidence.
2. Define distinct rubric dimensions for fit, problem, current process, stakeholder, timing or urgency, and agreed next step.
3. For each dimension, specify observable evidence, allowed values, missing-evidence treatment, and reviewer.
4. Create reason codes for rejected or returned handoffs, including missing problem, process, stakeholder, timing, next step, and capacity.
5. Keep technical feasibility, safety, suitability, savings, and approval pending until an authorized specialist reviews actual evidence.
6. Route the shared threshold, capacity allocation, rejection workflow, and any technical claim to Sales and delivery owners.
7. Quality-check that the rubric preserves the conflict, makes incomplete handoffs rejectable, cites sources, and implies no acceptance.

### Field-by-field guidance — M05-A01

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

### Completed supported example — M05-A01

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

| Item ID | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Criterion or required state | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| QUAL-01 | Sales treats calendar acceptance as qualified, while delivery requires documented problem, current process, stakeholder, urgency, and agreed next step. | M05-I01 (F10, conflicting) | A shared qualification rule must separately record fit, problem, process, stakeholder, timing, and next-step evidence. | Authorized definition, field values, threshold, reason codes, prospect record, reviewer decision, and handoff result: not supplied. | Sales process owner and delivery specialist lead | Definition conflict — approval pending |

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

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

| Item ID | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Criterion or required state | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| GAP-01 | No record-level technical, safety, product-fit, or savings evidence is supplied. | M05-I01 (F10, conflicting) | Technical feasibility and approval remain pending an authorized specialist review of actual evidence. | Prospect requirements, technical record, test evidence, specialist assignment, review, decision, and conditions: not supplied. | Authorized technical specialist and delivery specialist lead | Gap open — no technical promise |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M05-A02 · Discovery handoff record** — Produce a bounded, reviewable discovery handoff record from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M05-I02 and address M05-EC02. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”
2. **M05-A03 · Acceptance-or-rejection workflow** — Produce a bounded, reviewable acceptance-or-rejection workflow from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M05-I01 and address M05-EC03. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

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

### Stop / Go / Escalate

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

### Completion test

- [ ] 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.

### Secondary evidence-trace crosswalk

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

#### Legacy worked-starter trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Input | Supported value | How to use it | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M05-A01 | M05-EC01 | M05-I01 (F10) | Sales and delivery teams use different definitions of a qualified meeting. | Place the supplied condition in the appropriate comparison row and leave every unsupplied requirement visibly open. Cite M05-I01 (F10) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed qualification rubric or an operational result. |

#### Legacy known-gap trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M05-A01 | M05-EC01 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the qualification rubric. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M05-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete. | Sales process owner | Record the missing evidence in M05-A01, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise. | Open — not supplied |

### Decision prompt

**M05-I02:** What bounded decision can the Sales process owner make from M05-I02, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?

### Artifact-build tables

### M05-A01 · Qualification rubric

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

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M05-I01

**Instructions:** Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M05-EC01:** Separates fit, problem, process, stakeholder, timing, and next-step evidence
- **M05-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

| Item ID | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Criterion or required state | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 05A01R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 05A01R-02 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M05-I01).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M05-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.

### M05-A02 · Discovery handoff record

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

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

**Instructions:** Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M05-EC02:** Lets specialists reject incomplete handoffs with a reason code

| Record ID | Supported facts | Source input ID | Decision or action pending | Owner or reviewer | Evidence needed | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 05A02R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 05A02R-02 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M05-I02).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M05-EC02) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### M05-A03 · Acceptance-or-rejection workflow

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable acceptance-or-rejection workflow from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M05-I01

**Instructions:** Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M05-EC03:** Avoids promising technical feasibility or approval before specialist review

| Element | From or trigger | To or outcome | Evidence and source ID | Owner | Open question | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 05A03R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 05A03R-02 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M05-I01).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M05-EC03) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Sales process owner is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### Artifact coverage map

| Artifact | Expected rows | Mapped criteria | Scoped case-fact inputs |
|---|---:|---|---|
| M05-A01 · Qualification rubric | 2 | M05-EC01, M05-EC04 | M05-I01 |
| M05-A02 · Discovery handoff record | 2 | M05-EC02 | M05-I02 |
| M05-A03 · Acceptance-or-rejection workflow | 2 | M05-EC03 | M05-I01 |

### Decision and revision record

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

### Evidence-criteria checklist

- [ ] **M05-EC01:** Separates fit, problem, process, stakeholder, timing, and next-step evidence
- [ ] **M05-EC02:** Lets specialists reject incomplete handoffs with a reason code
- [ ] **M05-EC03:** Avoids promising technical feasibility or approval before specialist review
- [ ] **M05-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

### Self-review note

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

## Module 6 — Measure learning and harm

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

**Prompt:** Build a scorecard that supports pilot decisions without rewarding uncontrolled volume.

**Deliverable:** A metric dictionary, weekly review agenda, and stop-or-adjust thresholds.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M06-I01 | case-fact | F01 | The pilot covers 120 companies in Utah and neighboring states over four weeks. | |
| M06-I02 | case-fact | F02 | Seventy-four accounts meet three fit indicators, twenty-eight meet two, and eighteen lack a traceable trigger. | |
| M06-I03 | case-fact | F04 | Twelve contacts have left their listed employer. | |
| M06-I04 | case-fact | F05 | Eight contacts have explicit prior opt-outs. | |
| M06-I05 | case-fact | F06 | Nineteen personal mobile numbers came from an unapproved vendor. | |
| M06-I06 | case-fact | F10 | Sales and delivery teams use different definitions of a qualified meeting. | |
| M06-I07 | case-fact | F11 | Delivery capacity is eight discovery calls per week with two technical specialists. | |
| M06-I08 | case-fact | F12 | The approved pilot budget ceiling is $6,000. | |
| M06-B01 | case-brief | CB01 | Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment. | |
| M06-S01 | assignment-scope | F01, F02, F04, F05, F06, F10, F11, F12 | 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. | |

### Completion boundary

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.

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] 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.

### Operating procedure

1. Capture each supplied baseline or risk condition with its module input ID, confidence, and limitation.
2. Define separate metrics for relevant replies, accepted handoffs, opt-outs, complaints, wrong contacts, downstream outcomes, capacity use, and spend.
3. For every metric, specify population, numerator, denominator, period, source, owner, refresh, and action; mark all operational values not supplied.
4. Preserve the qualification-definition conflict so accepted-handoff counts cannot be interpreted until Sales and delivery align the rule.
5. Design a weekly review agenda that compares evidence quality, recipient harm signals, specialist capacity, and budget rather than rewarding volume alone.
6. Predeclare learner-proposed continue, adjust, stop, and escalate conditions without claiming thresholds are approved.
7. Quality-check metric definitions, source traceability, denominator integrity, decision actions, gaps, and absence of fabricated pilot results.

### Field-by-field guidance — M06-A01

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

### Completed supported example — M06-A01

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

| Term or field | Definition | Allowed values or rule | Evidence source | Owner | Change trigger | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Opt-out rate | Explicit opt-out events divided by contacts reached during the defined weekly review period; no outreach population or weekly events are supplied. | 0–100 percent only when numerator, denominator, deduplication, period, and suppression event records are complete; otherwise Unknown. | M06-I04 (F05, confirmed: eight prior opt-outs are a baseline exclusion, not a pilot rate) | Sales process owner and authorized privacy reviewer | Learner proposal: any missed suppression is an immediate stop-and-escalate event; approved threshold not supplied. | Definition proposed — operational value not supplied |

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

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

| Term or field | Definition | Allowed values or rule | Evidence source | Owner | Change trigger | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Accepted-handoff rate | Accepted discovery handoffs divided by reviewed handoffs in a stated period under one authorized qualification definition. | Do not calculate while Sales and delivery definitions conflict or while record-level decisions are absent. | M06-I06 (F10, conflicting) | Sales process owner and delivery specialist lead | Shared definition, complete handoff records, reviewer decisions, period, and action threshold: not supplied. | Gap open — metric blocked |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M06-A02 · Weekly review agenda** — Produce a bounded, reviewable weekly review agenda from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M06-I02, M06-I07 and address M06-EC02. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”
2. **M06-A03 · Stop-or-adjust threshold register** — Produce a bounded, reviewable stop-or-adjust threshold register from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M06-I01, M06-I08 and address M06-EC03. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

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

### Stop / Go / Escalate

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

### Completion test

- [ ] 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.

### Secondary evidence-trace crosswalk

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

#### Legacy worked-starter trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Input | Supported value | How to use it | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M06-A01 | M06-EC01 | M06-I03 (F04) | Twelve contacts have left their listed employer. | 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. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed sales metric dictionary or an operational result. |

#### Legacy known-gap trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M06-A01 | M06-EC01 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the sales metric dictionary. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M06-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete. | Sales process owner | Record the missing evidence in M06-A01, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise. | Open — not supplied |

### Decision prompt

**M06-I08:** 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?

### Artifact-build tables

### M06-A01 · Sales metric dictionary

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

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M06-I03, M06-I04, M06-I05, M06-I06

**Instructions:** Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M06-EC01:** Includes relevant replies, accepted handoffs, opt-outs, complaints, wrong contacts, and downstream outcomes
- **M06-EC02:** Defines population, period, source, owner, and action for each metric
- **M06-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

| Term or field | Definition | Allowed values or rule | Evidence source | Owner | Change trigger | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 06A01R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A01R-02 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] 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.

### M06-A02 · Weekly review agenda

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

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M06-I02, M06-I07

**Instructions:** Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M06-EC02:** Defines population, period, source, owner, and action for each metric

| Step or milestone | Trigger or date | Evidence and source ID | Owner | Gate or threshold | Dependency or gap | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 06A02R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A02R-02 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M06-I02, M06-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.

### M06-A03 · Stop-or-adjust threshold register

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable stop-or-adjust threshold register from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M06-I01, M06-I08

**Instructions:** Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M06-EC03:** Predeclares conditions for continuing, revising, or stopping the pilot

| Entry ID | Issue or event | Evidence and source ID | Risk or impact | Owner | Bounded next step | Review point | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 06A03R-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A03R-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M06-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.

### Artifact coverage map

| Artifact | Expected rows | Mapped criteria | Scoped case-fact inputs |
|---|---:|---|---|
| M06-A01 · Sales metric dictionary | 2 | M06-EC01, M06-EC02, M06-EC04 | M06-I03, M06-I04, M06-I05, M06-I06 |
| M06-A02 · Weekly review agenda | 2 | M06-EC02 | M06-I02, M06-I07 |
| M06-A03 · Stop-or-adjust threshold register | 2 | M06-EC03 | M06-I01, M06-I08 |

### Decision and revision record

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

### Evidence-criteria checklist

- [ ] **M06-EC01:** Includes relevant replies, accepted handoffs, opt-outs, complaints, wrong contacts, and downstream outcomes
- [ ] **M06-EC02:** Defines population, period, source, owner, and action for each metric
- [ ] **M06-EC03:** Predeclares conditions for continuing, revising, or stopping the pilot
- [ ] **M06-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

### Self-review note

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

## Final packet review

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