# Pioneer Advisory operating week — evidence-and-artifact workbook

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

**Case brief record:** CB01

This fictional, sanitized virtual-operations case uses invented people, organizations, calendars, records, and requests. It contains no real personal or confidential data and grants no employment, legal, financial, or security authority.

## 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 — Set the professional boundary

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

**Prompt:** Define authority, confidentiality, access, acceptance, refusal, and escalation standards for the simulated role.

**Deliverable:** A client operating charter and unsafe-request response card.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M01-I01 | case-fact | F06 | A photographed credit card was sent through chat for travel booking. | |
| M01-I02 | case-fact | F07 | A partner requested login using a personal password. | |
| M01-I03 | case-fact | F09 | A draft message makes an unsupported thirty-day funding guarantee. | |
| M01-I04 | case-fact | F11 | The assistant is asked to represent an unsigned contract as approved. | |
| 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 | F06, F07, F09, F11 | Build a starter version of “A client operating charter and unsafe-request response card.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it. | |

### Completion boundary

Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F06, F07, F09, F11, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] Confirm F06, F07, F09, and F11; identify the card image, personal-password request, unsupported guarantee, and unsigned-contract representation as requests outside safe delegated execution.
- [ ] STOP “Set the professional boundary” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F06, F07, F09, and F11; identify the card image, personal-password request, unsupported guarantee, and unsigned-contract representation as requests outside safe delegated execution. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized client process owner, with security, privacy, payment, contract, or subject review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result.

### Operating procedure

1. Define administrative preparation, approval, representation, payment handling, credential use, confidentiality, and escalation as separate authority categories.
2. Record the photographed card and personal-password request as unsafe supplied events without copying sensitive values or attempting access.
3. Record the funding guarantee and unsigned-contract request as unsupported representation/approval claims.
4. Draft refusal and safe-alternative standards as learner proposals, using approved payment and credential methods only.
5. Assign confidential-data, contract, licensed-decision, and external-representation questions to authorized client/specialist reviewers.
6. Final-QC every charter rule for scope, refusal trigger, alternative path, reviewer, and pending approval; do not claim any request was actioned.

### Field-by-field guidance — M01-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| Charter section | Name the controlled charter section that governs the unsafe request—payment, credentials, external claims, or contract status—and connect it to M01-I01 (F06), M01-I02 (F07), M01-I03 (F09), or M01-I04 (F11). If the governing charter is not supplied, label the section a learner-proposed control. Do not imply that policy or authority already exists. Review: the client process owner and the decision-specific specialist. |
| In-scope preparation | State the specific material the assistant may safely prepare without executing the request: an itinerary, factual draft, evidence packet, or clarification list. Tie the boundary to M01-I01 (F06), M01-I02 (F07), M01-I03 (F09), or M01-I04 (F11); mark delegated scope not supplied when absent. Never treat preparation as permission to pay, authenticate, guarantee, sign, approve, or release. Keep pending for the client process owner. |
| Prohibited execution or representation | State the precise action, inference, proxy, data use, or claim that is allowed or prohibited and pair any refusal with a safe authorized alternative for Prohibited execution or representation. Evidence: no direct “Set the professional boundary” source fact; mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not write a vague warning that leaves the learner unable to decide what to stop or what is safe. Escalate to the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Supported scenario | Describe one unsafe-request fact exactly as supplied: photographed-card use at M01-I01 (F06), personal-password login at M01-I02 (F07), unsupported funding guarantee at M01-I03 (F09), or unsigned-contract representation at M01-I04 (F11). If scenario evidence is not supplied, name that gap. Do not merge the request with a conclusion that it was executed, approved, or resolved. Review: the client process owner and relevant specialist. |
| Source input ID | Place the exact module input and fact ID beside every material scenario statement: M01-I01 (F06), M01-I02 (F07), M01-I03 (F09), and M01-I04 (F11). If a statement lacks one of these traces, mark its source not supplied. Never use the case brief, an artifact ID, or an unrelated input as authority or approval. Keep pending for the client process owner and decision-specific reviewer. |
| Approved-method or evidence need | Name the approved channel, credential, source, or review evidence required before the assistant may prepare the next safe step for Approved-method or evidence need. Evidence: M01-I02 (F07), M01-I04 (F11); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not convert an unsafe request into an approved method merely by restating it in professional language. Escalate to the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Refusal or safe alternative | Refusal or safe alternative: State the precise action, inference, proxy, data use, or claim that is allowed or prohibited and pair any refusal with a safe authorized alternative. No “Set the professional boundary” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing safety boundary. Do not write a vague warning that leaves the learner unable to decide what to stop or what is safe. Review: the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Escalation owner | For Escalation owner, name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied. No “Set the professional boundary” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing decision authority. Never invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Keep pending for the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Decision requested | Write a stop/go/escalate rule with its prerequisite, authorized decision role, evidence gate, and pending outcome for Decision requested. Evidence: M01-I02 (F07), M01-I04 (F11); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not execute the control, commit funds, release work, or claim a decision occurred in this exercise. Escalate to the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Status | Status: Select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required. Cite M01-I02 (F07), M01-I04 (F11); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing state control. Do not mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Review: the client process owner and any required specialist. |

### 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.

| Charter section | In-scope preparation | Prohibited execution or representation | Supported scenario | Source input ID | Approved-method or evidence need | Refusal or safe alternative | Escalation owner | Decision requested | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sensitive data, credentials, commercial claims, and contract-status boundaries. | Prepare an itinerary, draft factual message, or assemble contract-status questions using approved systems and evidence; do not book, authenticate, guarantee, or represent approval. | Do not use the photographed card (M01-I01), personal password (M01-I02), unsupported funding guarantee (M01-I03), or describe the unsigned contract as approved (M01-I04). | Four separate unsafe requests are documented at M01-I01 (F06), M01-I02 (F07), M01-I03 (F09), and M01-I04 (F11); none is recorded as actioned. | M01-I01 (F06); M01-I03 (F09); M01-I02 (F07); M01-I04 (F11) | Travel/payment: approved booking and payment method. Login: organization-managed delegated access. Funding claim: substantiated approved claim. Contract: signed/authorized status evidence. | Learner draft — “I can prepare the materials, but I cannot use a card image or personal password, promise funding, or state that an unsigned contract is approved. Please provide the approved method or authorized evidence.” Not sent. | Client operations owner coordinates; the approved-payment owner decides the card request (F06), the system/security owner decides delegated access (F07), the authorized external-claims owner reviews the funding statement (F09), and the contract owner or counsel decides contract status (F11). Assignments and decisions remain pending unless documented. | Client process owner to designate approved payment/access methods and claim/contract authority; specialist review where privacy, payment, security, or contract status applies. | Draft — cited evidence recorded; authorized review pending |

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

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

| Charter section | In-scope preparation | Prohibited execution or representation | Supported scenario | Source input ID | Approved-method or evidence need | Refusal or safe alternative | Escalation owner | Decision requested | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Not approved — operating charter and client authorization record are absent. | Not supplied — exact delegated preparation scope per workflow. | Known prohibited scenarios preserved; governing client policy and exception authority not supplied. | Evidence supplied for the four requests; no completion or outcome evidence supplied. | M01-I04 (F11); M01-I02 (F07); M01-I03 (F09); M01-I01 (F06) | Not supplied — approved payment, access, claim, and contract-status methods. | Draft requires client process/security/privacy/payment/contract review; not sent. | Not supplied — client operations must identify the approved-payment, system/security, external-claims, and contract decision owners for F06, F07, F09, and F11 before any request advances. | Pending authorized owners; no decision is supplied. | Blocked — required evidence or authorized decision not supplied |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M01-A02 · Unsafe-request response card** — Produce a bounded, reviewable unsafe-request response card from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 1 row from M01-I02, M01-I04 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

#### M01-A02 · Unsafe-request response card

**Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work.

**Criterion demonstrated:** M01-EC02

**Why this row is included:** Teaches a useful refusal plus a safe alternative, not merely a prohibition, while preserving client authority and sensitive-data boundaries.

| Draft ID | Audience and purpose | Supported facts | Proposed wording | Prohibited or unsupported claim | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| M01-A02-M01-EC02-EX01 | Produce a bounded, reviewable unsafe-request response card from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Audience and release owner remain subject to the module's authorized review. | Completed fictional learner example. Supplied evidence — M01-I02: A partner requested login using a personal password. \| M01-I04: The assistant is asked to represent an unsigned contract as approved. Applied control — Teaches a useful refusal plus a safe alternative, not merely a prohibition, while preserving client authority and sensitive-data boundaries. | I cannot use a personal password or handle payment-card data through chat. Please provide the client's approved delegated-access and secure payment workflow. I can prepare the booking details once that method and authorization are supplied; no login or booking has been performed. | Do not use or request a personal password, retain/transmit the photographed card, claim access authority, or state that booking occurred. | Escalation owner: Authorized client access, security/privacy, and payment-process owners | Blocked — approved method and authorization pending |

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **Stop** | Stop work that uses shared personal passwords, chat-delivered payment-card images, unsupported guarantees, unsigned approvals, or authority outside the charter. |
| **Go** | Proceed only with administrative preparation inside explicit authority and approved confidential-data/access methods. |
| **Escalate** | Escalate credentials/payment data to security/privacy/payment owners and contracts, licensed decisions, guarantees, or representation to authorized specialists. |

### Completion test

- [ ] Preparation, approval, representation, credentials, payment, confidentiality, refusal, and escalation are distinct.
- [ ] F06/F07/F09/F11 are cited without reproducing sensitive values.
- [ ] No login, payment, guarantee, contract approval, or external statement is claimed.

### Secondary evidence-trace crosswalk

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

#### Legacy worked-starter trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Input | Supported value | How to use it | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M01-A01 | M01-EC01 | M01-I01 (F06) | A photographed credit card was sent through chat for travel booking. | State the supplied condition with its limitation and frame the decision that an authorized reviewer must make. Cite M01-I01 (F06) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed client operating charter or an operational result. |

#### Legacy known-gap trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M01-A02 | M01-EC02 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the unsafe-request response card. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M01-EC02 or represent this artifact as complete. | Authorized client or operating manager | Record the missing evidence in M01-A02, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise. | Open — not supplied |

### Decision prompt

**M01-I04:** What bounded decision can the Authorized client or operating manager make from M01-I04, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?

### Artifact-build tables

### M01-A01 · Client operating charter

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

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

- **M01-EC01:** Separates administrative preparation from approval and representation
- **M01-EC03:** States confidential-data and licensed-decision boundaries
- **M01-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

| Charter section | In-scope preparation | Prohibited execution or representation | Supported scenario | Source input ID | Approved-method or evidence need | Refusal or safe alternative | Escalation owner | Decision requested | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 01A01R-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 01A01R-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 01A01R-03 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 01A01R-04 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 01A01R-05 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 01A01R-06 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 01A01R-07 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 01A01R-08 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M01-I01, M01-I03).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M01-EC01, M01-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 Authorized client or operating manager is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### M01-A02 · Unsafe-request response card

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

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M01-I02, M01-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**

- **M01-EC02:** Rejects password and payment-card sharing in favor of approved methods

| Draft ID | Audience and purpose | Supported facts | Proposed wording | Prohibited or unsupported claim | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 01A02R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M01-I02, M01-I04).
- [ ] 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 Authorized client or operating manager 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 · Client operating charter | 8 | M01-EC01, M01-EC03, M01-EC04 | M01-I01, M01-I03, M01-I02, M01-I04 |
| M01-A02 · Unsafe-request response card | 1 | M01-EC02 | M01-I02, M01-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

- [ ] **M01-EC01:** Separates administrative preparation from approval and representation
- [ ] **M01-EC02:** Rejects password and payment-card sharing in favor of approved methods
- [ ] **M01-EC03:** States confidential-data and licensed-decision boundaries
- [ ] **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 — Triage competing work

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

**Prompt:** Turn the aggregate 27-task intake facts into a portfolio-level triage starter and design decision requests for the four reported conflicts without inventing the omitted task records.

**Deliverable:** A portfolio-level triage table, capacity view, blank 27-row task worksheet, and four conflict decision-request templates marked pending record-level evidence.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M02-I01 | case-fact | F01 | The intake includes twenty-seven tasks but only nine have due dates. | |
| M02-I02 | case-fact | F02 | Seven tasks name an approver and five carry confidential-client labels. | |
| M02-I03 | case-fact | F03 | Four assignments conflict with another authorized leader's request. | |
| M02-I04 | case-fact | F12 | Current reporting counts completed tasks but omits quality, control, and outcome measures. | |
| M02-B01 | case-brief | CB01 | Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment. | |
| M02-S01 | assignment-scope | F01, F02, F03, F12 | Build a starter version of “A portfolio-level triage table, capacity view, blank 27-row task worksheet, and four conflict decision-request templates marked pending record-level evidence.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it. | |

### Completion boundary

Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F01, F02, F03, F12, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] Confirm F01, F02, F03, and F12; do not infer any individual request, requester, date, confidentiality label, conflict identity, approver, effort, or task outcome from aggregate counts.
- [ ] STOP “Triage competing work” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F01, F02, F03, and F12; do not infer any individual request, requester, date, confidentiality label, conflict identity, approver, effort, or task outcome from aggregate counts. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized client process owner, with security, privacy, payment, contract, or subject review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result.

### Operating procedure

1. Capture the aggregate portfolio exactly: 27 tasks, nine due dates, seven named approvers, five confidential-client labels, and four cross-authority conflicts.
2. Use a triage rubric covering authority, deadline/commitment, impact, dependency, confidentiality/control, effort/capacity, reversibility, and evidence confidence.
3. Create the aggregate-safe TASK starter row supplied in this bank; never convert aggregate counts into fictional individual task attributes.
4. Create one pending CONFLICT decision-request starter and replicate its structure only after individual conflict records are supplied.
5. Apply the capacity rule: admit a task only after authority, required controls, due date, dependency, and effort are supplied; otherwise hold and request data.
6. Route cross-leader conflicts or demand exceeding evidence-backed available capacity to the designated client decision owner; do not self-prioritize.
7. Final-QC that task-level details, approvals, quality, control, outcomes, and completed work remain absent or pending.

### Field-by-field guidance — M02-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| Portfolio field | Name the specific task-level attribute being summarized—due date, approver, confidentiality, authority conflict, effort, capacity, dependency, completion evidence, or status—and cite M02-I01 (F01), M02-I02 (F02), M02-I03 (F03), or M02-I04 (F12). Mark record-level values not supplied when only aggregate counts exist. Do not invent individual tasks from counts. Review: the portfolio sponsor and affected control owner. |
| Aggregate evidence | For Aggregate evidence, transcribe the smallest decision-relevant fact supported by the cited module input and preserve its supplied confidence or uncertainty. Cite M02-I01 (F01), M02-I02 (F02), M02-I03 (F03); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing bounded evidence. Never convert a report, allegation, estimate, or provisional statement into a verified fact. Keep pending for the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Source input ID | List the exact module input ID beside every material statement, adding its fact ID when present for Source input ID. Evidence: M02-I01 (F01), M02-I02 (F02), M02-I03 (F03); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not cite the case brief as approval or cite an input that does not support the statement. Escalate to the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Required task-level fields | List the specific minimum row fields needed before ranking: task ID, requested outcome, requester, due date and time zone, approver, sensitivity, authority conflict, dependency, effort, available capacity, evidence, and status. M02-I01 (F01), M02-I02 (F02), M02-I03 (F03), and M02-I04 (F12) supply only aggregate gaps; mark individual values not supplied. Do not reconstruct task identities. Review: the portfolio sponsor. |
| Triage rule | Write a specific learner-proposed sequence: stop authority or sensitivity conflicts, clarify missing due dates and approvers, then compare impact, urgency, effort, dependencies, and documented capacity. Use M02-I03 (F03) and M02-I04 (F12) as the conflict and quality-boundary evidence; mark approved priority policy not supplied. Never rank or execute a task from aggregate counts alone. Keep pending for the portfolio sponsor and conflicting request owners. |
| Capacity dependency | State the exact absent record, decision, method, value, or authority; explain why it matters and the bounded next request for Capacity dependency. Evidence: no direct “Triage competing work” source fact; mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not hide the gap in narrative, fill it with a placeholder value, or imply the request was answered. Escalate to the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Conflict or authority gate | Conflict or authority gate: Write a stop/go/escalate rule with its prerequisite, authorized decision role, evidence gate, and pending outcome. Cite M02-I03 (F03), M02-I04 (F12); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing decision gate. Do not execute the control, commit funds, release work, or claim a decision occurred in this exercise. Review: the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Decision owner | For Decision owner, name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied. No “Triage competing work” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing decision authority. Never invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Keep pending for the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Status | Select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required for Status. Evidence: M02-I03 (F03); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Escalate to the client process owner and any required specialist. |

### 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.

| Portfolio field | Aggregate evidence | Source input ID | Required task-level fields | Triage rule | Capacity dependency | Conflict or authority gate | Decision owner | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Task-level due date, approver, confidentiality, conflict, effort/capacity, dependency, and completion evidence. | 27 tasks; only 9 have due dates, 7 name an approver, 5 are confidentiality-labeled, and 4 conflict with another authorized leader's request (M02-I01–M02-I03). | M02-I01 (F01); M02-I02 (F02); M02-I03 (F03); M02-I04 (F12) | Task ID, requested outcome, owner/requester, due date/time zone, approver, sensitivity, authority conflict, dependency, effort/capacity, evidence, and status. | Learner proposal — stop tasks with authority/sensitivity conflicts; clarify missing due date/approver; rank only after impact, urgency, effort, dependency, and capacity are documented. | Not supplied — assistant availability, task effort, service limits, and contingency capacity; 27-task count alone cannot establish feasibility. | Four assignments conflict with another authorized leader (M02-I03, F03); route each conflict to the named authorized decision roles before scheduling or execution. | The authorized portfolio sponsor and the leaders who issued the four conflicting assignments must resolve priority and authority; the confidentiality owner reviews any sensitive task. Specific assignees and decisions are not supplied and remain pending. | Draft — cited evidence recorded; authorized review pending |

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

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

| Portfolio field | Aggregate evidence | Source input ID | Required task-level fields | Triage rule | Capacity dependency | Conflict or authority gate | Decision owner | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Task-level source rows are incomplete. | Counts supplied; record-level identities and facts not supplied. | M02-I04 (F12); M02-I03 (F03); M02-I02 (F02); M02-I01 (F01) | 18 due dates, 20 approvers, confidentiality review, conflict disposition, effort, capacity, and dependencies remain missing or unresolved. | Proposed only; approval and record-level application not supplied. | Not supplied — hours, skills, availability, and service constraints. | Open — four conflicting assignments lack authorized resolution. | Not supplied — identify the portfolio sponsor, each conflicting request owner, and the confidentiality decision owner before scheduling the affected tasks. | Blocked — required evidence or authorized decision not supplied |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M02-A02 · Capacity view** — Produce a bounded, reviewable capacity view from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M02-I01, M02-I03 and address M02-EC02. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”
2. **M02-A03 · Twenty-seven-task intake worksheet** — Produce a bounded, reviewable twenty-seven-task intake worksheet from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 27 rows from M02-I01, M02-I02, M02-I03 and address M02-EC01, M02-EC02. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”
3. **M02-A04 · Conflict decision requests** — Produce a bounded, reviewable conflict decision requests from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 4 rows from M02-I03 and address 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

#### M02-A03 · Twenty-seven-task intake worksheet

**Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work.

**Criterion demonstrated:** M02-EC01, M02-EC02

**Why this row is included:** This completed training row demonstrates the declared criterion route for Twenty-seven-task intake worksheet without claiming live execution or approval.

| Task ID | Request | Requester/authority | Due date/time zone | Confidentiality | Dependency/conflict | Effort/capacity | Priority rationale | Approver | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| TASK-AGG-01 | Aggregate starter: create one row for each of 27 intake tasks; individual requests are not supplied. | Not supplied; aggregate evidence says seven tasks name an approver (M02-I02/F02). | Not supplied for this row; aggregate evidence says nine of 27 tasks have due dates (M02-I01/F01). | Aggregate only: five of 27 tasks carry confidential-client labels (M02-I02/F02). | Aggregate only: four assignments conflict with another authorized leader’s request (M02-I03/F03). | Not supplied; individual estimates, skill needs, work in progress, and available capacity are absent. | Learner proposal: block task-level ranking until authority, deadline, conflict, confidentiality, dependency, effort, and approver fields are supplied. | Authorized client or operating manager; task-specific approver is not supplied. | Open — aggregate-safe starter; no individual task ranked or executed. |

#### M02-A04 · Conflict decision requests

**Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work.

**Criterion demonstrated:** M02-EC03

**Why this row is included:** This completed training row demonstrates the declared criterion route for Conflict decision requests without claiming live execution or approval.

| Decision | Evidence for | Evidence against | Options and tradeoffs | Decision owner | Required approval | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Resolve one of four reported cross-authority priority conflicts; specific task identities remain not supplied. | M02-I03/F03 confirms four assignments conflict with another authorized leader’s request. | Individual task, requester, deadline, impact, confidentiality, dependency, and effort records are not supplied. | Defer both; sequence by authorized decision; split scope; or add capacity after review—each option remains a learner proposal. | Authorized client or operating manager designated to resolve cross-leader conflicts. | Named decision-owner approval and affected-authority acknowledgment; identities and approvals are not supplied. | Pending — do not execute the conflicting assignments. |

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **Stop** | Stop individual ranking or execution when requester authority, deadline/time zone, confidentiality, conflict, dependency, effort, approver, or required control is missing. |
| **Go** | Proceed to owner review only with a completed task row, evidence-backed available capacity, and no unresolved authority/control conflict. |
| **Escalate** | Escalate every cross-authority conflict and any demand above verified capacity to the designated client decision owner with options and tradeoffs. |

### Completion test

- [ ] All five aggregate counts are exact and no individual task details are invented.
- [ ] The TASK starter, CONFLICT request, triage rubric, and capacity rule are operationally explicit.
- [ ] Task decisions, approvals, execution, and results remain pending.

### Secondary evidence-trace crosswalk

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

#### Legacy worked-starter trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Input | Supported value | How to use it | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M02-A01 | M02-EC01 | M02-I01 (F01) | The intake includes twenty-seven tasks but only nine have due dates. | Place the supplied condition in the appropriate comparison row and leave every unsupplied requirement visibly open. Cite M02-I01 (F01) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed portfolio-level triage summary 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 portfolio-level triage summary. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M02-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete. | Authorized client or operating manager | Record the missing evidence in M02-A01, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise. | Open — not supplied |

### Decision prompt

**M02-I03:** What bounded decision can the Authorized client or operating manager make from M02-I03, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?

### Artifact-build tables

### M02-A01 · Portfolio-level triage summary

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

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M02-I01, 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-EC01:** Uses the supplied aggregate counts for deadline, approver, confidentiality, and conflict coverage without inventing individual task details
- **M02-EC02:** Shows the impact, dependency, authority, effort, and confidentiality fields needed to expose tradeoffs

| Portfolio field | Aggregate evidence | Source input ID | Required task-level fields | Triage rule | Capacity dependency | Conflict or authority gate | Decision owner | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 02A01R-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 02A01R-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 02A01R-03 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 02A01R-04 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 02A01R-05 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 02A01R-06 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 02A01R-07 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 02A01R-08 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M02-I01, M02-I02, M02-I03, M02-I04).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M02-EC01, M02-EC02) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Authorized client or operating manager is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### M02-A02 · Capacity view

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

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

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

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M02-EC02:** Shows the impact, dependency, authority, effort, and confidentiality fields needed to expose tradeoffs

| Item ID | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Criterion or required state | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 02A02R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 02A02R-02 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M02-I01, M02-I03).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M02-EC02) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Authorized client or operating manager is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### M02-A03 · Twenty-seven-task intake worksheet

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable twenty-seven-task intake worksheet from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

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

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

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M02-EC01:** Uses the supplied aggregate counts for deadline, approver, confidentiality, and conflict coverage without inventing individual task details
- **M02-EC02:** Shows the impact, dependency, authority, effort, and confidentiality fields needed to expose tradeoffs

| Task ID | Request | Requester/authority | Due date/time zone | Confidentiality | Dependency/conflict | Effort/capacity | Priority rationale | Approver | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| TASK-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-03 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-04 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-05 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-06 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-07 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-08 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-09 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-10 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-11 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-12 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-13 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-14 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-15 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-16 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-17 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-18 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-19 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-20 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-21 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-22 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-23 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-24 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-25 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-26 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| TASK-27 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M02-I01, M02-I02, M02-I03).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M02-EC01, M02-EC02) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Authorized client or operating manager is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### M02-A04 · Conflict decision requests

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

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M02-I03

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

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M02-EC03:** Routes conflicting priorities to designated-owner decisions and leaves identity, deadline, and task specifics pending

| Decision | Evidence for | Evidence against | Options and tradeoffs | Decision owner | Required approval | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CONFLICT-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| CONFLICT-02 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| CONFLICT-03 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| CONFLICT-04 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M02-I03).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (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 Authorized client or operating manager 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 · Portfolio-level triage summary | 8 | M02-EC01, M02-EC02 | M02-I01, M02-I02, M02-I03, M02-I04 |
| M02-A02 · Capacity view | 2 | M02-EC02 | M02-I01, M02-I03 |
| M02-A03 · Twenty-seven-task intake worksheet | 27 | M02-EC01, M02-EC02 | M02-I01, M02-I02, M02-I03 |
| M02-A04 · Conflict decision requests | 4 | M02-EC03 | M02-I03 |

### Decision and revision record

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

### Evidence-criteria checklist

- [ ] **M02-EC01:** Uses the supplied aggregate counts for deadline, approver, confidentiality, and conflict coverage without inventing individual task details
- [ ] **M02-EC02:** Shows the impact, dependency, authority, effort, and confidentiality fields needed to expose tradeoffs
- [ ] **M02-EC03:** Routes conflicting priorities to designated-owner decisions and leaves identity, deadline, and task specifics pending

### Self-review note

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

## Module 3 — Control calendar and documents

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

**Prompt:** Resolve the meeting time and repair the brief without overwriting source evidence.

**Deliverable:** A meeting-correction request, agenda, decision-ready brief, and version log; the invitation remains pending a verified date, time, and zone.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M03-I01 | case-fact | F04 | The Thursday meeting lists different Mountain and Central time-zone meanings. | |
| M03-I02 | case-fact | F05 | The meeting brief includes an outdated revenue figure. | |
| 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 | F04, F05 | Build a starter version of “A meeting-correction request, agenda, decision-ready brief, and version log; the invitation remains pending a verified date, time, and zone.” 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, F04, F05, 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 F04 and F05; recognize that the authoritative date-specific meeting time, current approved revenue figure, owner, version, distribution list, and approval status are not supplied.
- [ ] STOP “Control calendar and documents” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F04 and F05; recognize that the authoritative date-specific meeting time, current approved revenue figure, owner, version, distribution list, and approval status are not supplied. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized client process owner, with security, privacy, payment, contract, or subject review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result.

### Operating procedure

1. Preserve the two conflicting Mountain/Central interpretations without choosing one.
2. Request one date-specific authoritative meeting time, including named time zone and UTC offset where approved.
3. Record the outdated revenue figure as a correction need without inventing a replacement value.
4. Define source-owner, version, approval, and distribution fields for both the calendar correction and updated brief.
5. Route the time decision and revenue-source approval to the authorized client/operating owner.
6. Final-QC that the original record is preserved and no time, revenue, approval, update, or distribution is claimed.

### Field-by-field guidance — M03-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| Correction item | Name one specific discrepancy and the authoritative replacement required: the conflicting Mountain/Central meeting meaning at M03-I01 (F04) or the outdated revenue figure at M03-I02 (F05). If the exact date, zone, current value, version, or owner is not supplied, state that gap. Do not silently edit the source or invent a corrected value. Review: the meeting owner or financial/source owner, plus the distribution owner. |
| Supported issue | For Supported issue, transcribe the smallest decision-relevant fact supported by the cited module input and preserve its supplied confidence or uncertainty. Cite M03-I01 (F04), M03-I02 (F05); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing bounded evidence. Never convert a report, allegation, estimate, or provisional statement into a verified fact. Keep pending for the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Source input ID | List the exact module input ID beside every material statement, adding its fact ID when present for Source input ID. Evidence: M03-I01 (F04), M03-I02 (F05); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not cite the case brief as approval or cite an input that does not support the statement. Escalate to the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Source preserved | Source preserved: Identify the controlled record, location, version, date, and module citation that governs this entry. No “Control calendar and documents” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing controlled provenance. Do not treat an undated draft, copied text, or secondary summary as the controlling record. Review: the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Missing authoritative evidence | For Missing authoritative evidence, state the exact absent record, decision, method, value, or authority; explain why it matters and the bounded next request. Cite M03-I01 (F04); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing gap discipline. Never hide the gap in narrative, fill it with a placeholder value, or imply the request was answered. Keep pending for the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Decision requested | Write a stop/go/escalate rule with its prerequisite, authorized decision role, evidence gate, and pending outcome for Decision requested. Evidence: M03-I02 (F05); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not execute the control, commit funds, release work, or claim a decision occurred in this exercise. Escalate to the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Version or owner | Version or owner: Name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied. Cite M03-I01 (F04), M03-I02 (F05); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing decision authority. Do not invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Review: the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Distribution status | For Distribution status, select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required. Cite M03-I02 (F05); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing state control. Never mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Keep pending for the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Reviewer | Name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied for Reviewer. Evidence: no direct “Control calendar and documents” source fact; mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Escalate to the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Status | Status: Select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required. Cite M03-I02 (F05); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing state control. Do not mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Review: the client process owner and any required specialist. |

### 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.

| Correction item | Supported issue | Source input ID | Source preserved | Missing authoritative evidence | Decision requested | Version or owner | Distribution status | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Thursday meeting date/time-zone meaning and revenue figure. | Meeting lists different Mountain and Central time-zone meanings (M03-I01, F04); brief contains an outdated revenue figure (M03-I02, F05). | M03-I01 (F04); M03-I02 (F05) | Preserve the original meeting record and brief as received; create a separate correction request rather than silently editing either source. | Exact date, IANA zones/UTC offsets, authoritative meeting time, current approved revenue source, version/date, and release owner are not supplied. | Meeting owner to confirm exact date/time and zones; financial/source owner to provide the current approved revenue record; distribution owner to approve correction notice. | Correction draft version 0.1 (learner label); authoritative version and owners not supplied. | Not distributed — recipient list, owner approval, and evidence of corrected distribution are not supplied. | Meeting owner confirms the exact date, time, and zones; financial/source owner validates the current revenue record; distribution owner authorizes the correction notice. Named assignees and approvals remain pending unless documented. | Draft — cited evidence recorded; authorized review pending |

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

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

| Correction item | Supported issue | Source input ID | Source preserved | Missing authoritative evidence | Decision requested | Version or owner | Distribution status | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Two corrections identified; authoritative replacements not supplied. | Conflicts preserved at M03-I01 and M03-I02; no resolution inferred. | M03-I02 (F05); M03-I01 (F04) | Preservation location/version evidence not supplied. | Date-specific time-zone source and approved revenue source absent. | Pending meeting, financial/source, and distribution owners. | Not supplied — controlled correction version and accountable owner. | Blocked — correction not approved or distributed. | Not supplied — identify the meeting owner, financial/source owner, and correction-distribution owner before release. | Blocked — required evidence or authorized decision not supplied |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M03-A02 · Decision agenda** — Produce a bounded, reviewable decision agenda 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 · Decision-ready brief** — Produce a bounded, reviewable decision-ready brief from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 1 row from M03-I02 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.”
3. **M03-A04 · Document version log** — Produce a bounded, reviewable document version log from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M03-I01 and address M03-EC03. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

#### M03-A02 · Decision agenda

**Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work.

**Criterion demonstrated:** M03-EC02

**Why this row is included:** Creates traceability to a future approved source and leaves the actual number blank rather than laundering an outdated value into a correction.

| Step or milestone | Trigger or date | Evidence and source ID | Owner | Gate or threshold | Dependency or gap | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Decision agenda — Traces the corrected revenue figure to a future approved current source and marks the figure itself not supplied | Trigger: receipt of the cited module input or an authorized review request; execution date not supplied. | Completed fictional learner example. Supplied evidence — M03-I02: The meeting brief includes an outdated revenue figure. Applied control — Creates traceability to a future approved source and leaves the actual number blank rather than laundering an outdated value into a correction. \| Source input IDs: M03-I02 | Version or owner: Proposed next version pending; authorized finance/data owner not named in supplied inputs \| Reviewer: Authorized finance/data reviewer and meeting-record owner | Gate: Traces the corrected revenue figure to a future approved current source and marks the figure itself not supplied; threshold or acceptance remains pending authorized definition where not supplied. | Missing authoritative evidence: Approved current revenue source, source owner, effective period, currency/basis, and authorization are not supplied. \| Version or owner: Proposed next version pending; authorized finance/data owner not named in supplied inputs \| Distribution status: Not distributed — correction and audience list pending \| Status: Blocked — current figure not supplied | Blocked — current figure not supplied |

#### M03-A04 · Document version log

**Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work.

**Criterion demonstrated:** M03-EC03

**Why this row is included:** Makes owner, version, approval, and distribution independently visible so none can be mistaken for completed review.

| Entry ID | Issue or event | Evidence and source ID | Risk or impact | Owner | Bounded next step | Review point | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| M03-A04-M03-EC03-EX01 | Records owner, version, approval status, and distribution as fields rather than completed approvals | Completed fictional learner example. Supplied evidence — M03-I01: The Thursday meeting lists different Mountain and Central time-zone meanings. Applied control — Makes owner, version, approval, and distribution independently visible so none can be mistaken for completed review. \| Source input IDs: M03-I01 | Makes owner, version, approval, and distribution independently visible so none can be mistaken for completed review. Risk remains bounded by the stated evidence gap and pending authority. | Version or owner: Version: proposed correction v0.1; owner field: authorized meeting-record owner not supplied \| Reviewer: Authorized schedule owner, finance/data reviewer, and document-control reviewer | Learner-applied control: Makes owner, version, approval, and distribution independently visible so none can be mistaken for completed review. Record the evidence gap, route it to the authorized role, and leave execution and approval pending. | Review only when the named evidence and authorized disposition are available. Current state: Draft — approval and distribution pending | Draft — approval and distribution pending |

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **Stop** | Stop calendar/brief distribution when authoritative date/time or approved current revenue evidence is absent or conflicting. |
| **Go** | Proceed to document review when source, owner, version, decision, and distribution fields are complete. |
| **Escalate** | Escalate the time conflict and financial-content correction to their authorized owners; do not resolve either by assumption. |

### Completion test

- [ ] Both conflicts/gaps are cited and preserved.
- [ ] Date/time and revenue-source decisions have explicit reviewer fields.
- [ ] No time conversion, revenue number, approval, update, or distribution is invented.

### Secondary evidence-trace crosswalk

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

#### Legacy worked-starter trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Input | Supported value | How to use it | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M03-A01 | M03-EC01 | M03-I01 (F04) | The Thursday meeting lists different Mountain and Central time-zone meanings. | State the supplied condition with its limitation and frame the decision that an authorized reviewer must make. Cite M03-I01 (F04) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed meeting-correction request or an operational result. |

#### Legacy known-gap trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M03-A02 | M03-EC02 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the decision agenda. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M03-EC02 or represent this artifact as complete. | Authorized client or operating manager | Record the missing evidence in M03-A02, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise. | Open — not supplied |

### Decision prompt

**M03-I02:** What bounded decision can the Authorized client or operating manager make from M03-I02, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?

### Artifact-build tables

### M03-A01 · Meeting-correction request

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

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

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

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M03-EC01:** Identifies the conflicting Mountain and Central meanings and requests one date-specific authoritative time rather than inventing it

| Correction item | Supported issue | Source input ID | Source preserved | Missing authoritative evidence | Decision requested | Version or owner | Distribution status | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 03A01R-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 03A01R-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 03A01R-03 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 03A01R-04 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 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) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Authorized client or operating manager is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### M03-A02 · Decision agenda

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable decision agenda 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:** Traces the corrected revenue figure to a future approved current source and marks the figure itself not supplied

| Step or milestone | Trigger or date | Evidence and source ID | Owner | Gate or threshold | Dependency or gap | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 03A02R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 03A02R-02 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

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

### M03-A03 · Decision-ready brief

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable decision-ready brief 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-EC03:** Records owner, version, approval status, and distribution as fields rather than completed approvals

| 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-I02).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M03-EC03) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Authorized client or operating manager is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### M03-A04 · Document version log

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable document version log 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:** Records owner, version, approval status, and distribution as fields rather than completed approvals

| Entry ID | Issue or event | Evidence and source ID | Risk or impact | Owner | Bounded next step | Review point | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 03A04R-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 03A04R-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-EC03) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Authorized client or operating manager 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 · Meeting-correction request | 4 | M03-EC01 | M03-I01, M03-I02 |
| M03-A02 · Decision agenda | 2 | M03-EC02 | M03-I02 |
| M03-A03 · Decision-ready brief | 1 | M03-EC03 | M03-I02 |
| M03-A04 · Document version log | 2 | 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:** Identifies the conflicting Mountain and Central meanings and requests one date-specific authoritative time rather than inventing it
- [ ] **M03-EC02:** Traces the corrected revenue figure to a future approved current source and marks the figure itself not supplied
- [ ] **M03-EC03:** Records owner, version, approval status, and distribution as fields rather than completed approvals

### 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 — Research with evidence

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

**Prompt:** Reframe the licensing task and prepare a research protocol and memo shell for specialist review; do not conduct external research or present licensing conclusions.

**Deliverable:** A clarified research brief, source-log template, findings-table template, and open-question list with jurisdiction, current sources, and conclusions pending.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M04-I01 | case-fact | F08 | The licensing research request omits jurisdiction and source authority. | |
| 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 | F08 | Build a starter version of “A clarified research brief, source-log template, findings-table template, and open-question list with jurisdiction, current sources, and conclusions pending.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it. | |

### Completion boundary

Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F08, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] Confirm F08; record jurisdiction, decision purpose, effective date, source authority, official-source hierarchy, and qualified specialist as required inputs—not obtained facts.
- [ ] STOP “Research with evidence” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F08; record jurisdiction, decision purpose, effective date, source authority, official-source hierarchy, and qualified specialist as required inputs—not obtained facts. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized client process owner, with security, privacy, payment, contract, or subject review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result.

### Operating procedure

1. Restate the licensing request as an unresolved research question; do not research or conclude licensing status in this exercise.
2. Require jurisdiction, decision purpose, effective date, product/service scope, and authorized request owner before research begins.
3. Define a learner-proposed source hierarchy prioritizing current official primary materials and recording access/effective dates.
4. Separate future source text, bounded summary, interpretation, limitation, and specialist question fields.
5. Route legal, regulatory, licensing, or other professional conclusions to a qualified subject reviewer.
6. Final-QC that no external source, citation, jurisdiction, legal interpretation, or completed specialist review is invented.

### Field-by-field guidance — M04-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| Brief section | Name the specific research-brief section this row completes: jurisdiction, activity and applicant scope, decision question, authority standard, effective date, evidence-log method, or specialist boundary. M04-I01 (F08) supplies the missing-jurisdiction and missing-authority problem; other scope values remain not supplied. Do not turn a section heading into a research conclusion or claim that research occurred. Review: the client research owner and jurisdiction-qualified specialist. |
| Supported gap | Record the supplied gap at M04-I01 (F08): the licensing request omits jurisdiction and source authority. Preserve that as the bounded research problem and identify any additional missing activity, applicant, location, date, or decision facts as not supplied. Never infer the governing jurisdiction, applicable license, or authoritative source from the request alone. Keep pending for the client research owner and jurisdiction-qualified licensing/legal/compliance reviewer. |
| Source input ID | List the exact module input ID beside every material statement, adding its fact ID when present for Source input ID. Evidence: M04-I01 (F08); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not cite the case brief as approval or cite an input that does not support the statement. Escalate to the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Required scope input | List the specific facts needed before research: country/state/local jurisdiction, regulated activity or license type, applicant/entity type, operating location, relevant date, business decision, and acceptable authority level. M04-I01 (F08) confirms jurisdiction and authority are missing; mark every other absent item not supplied. Do not guess applicability from a company name or location shorthand. Review: the client research owner and jurisdiction-qualified specialist. |
| Proposed primary-source method | Describe a specific learner-proposed method that begins only after M04-I01 (F08) is clarified: search the official regulator, legislature, or agency; capture title, issuer, URL, jurisdiction, publication/effective date, accessed date, exact supported claim, and conflicts. Mark completed searches and results not supplied. Never treat search order as a legal conclusion. Keep pending for the client research owner and qualified licensing/legal/compliance reviewer. |
| Evidence-log field | Name the specific evidence-log column being defined: source ID, issuing authority, title, URL, jurisdiction, effective/version date, accessed date, excerpt or paraphrase, claim supported, confidence, conflict, or review status. Use M04-I01 (F08) only to document the current scope gap; mark source results not supplied. Do not invent URLs, dates, or findings. Escalate to the client research owner and qualified specialist before release. |
| Interpretation boundary | Interpretation boundary: State the precise action, inference, proxy, data use, or claim that is allowed or prohibited and pair any refusal with a safe authorized alternative. No “Research with evidence” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing safety boundary. Do not write a vague warning that leaves the learner unable to decide what to stop or what is safe. Review: the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Specialist question | For Specialist question, state the exact absent record, decision, method, value, or authority; explain why it matters and the bounded next request. No “Research with evidence” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing gap discipline. Never hide the gap in narrative, fill it with a placeholder value, or imply the request was answered. Keep pending for the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Reviewer | Name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied for Reviewer. Evidence: M04-I01 (F08); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Escalate to the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Status | Status: Select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required. No “Research with evidence” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing state control. Do not mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Review: the client process owner and any required specialist. |

### 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.

| Brief section | Supported gap | Source input ID | Required scope input | Proposed primary-source method | Evidence-log field | Interpretation boundary | Specialist question | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Jurisdiction, research question, authority standard, date/version, deliverable, and specialist boundary. | Licensing research request omits jurisdiction and source authority (M04-I01, F08). | M04-I01 (F08) | Country/state/local jurisdiction, activity/license type, entity/applicant type, operating location, relevant date, decision needed, and acceptable authority level. | After scope is supplied, search the official regulator/legislature/agency site; capture page title, issuing body, URL, publication/effective date, accessed date, exact claim, and status. No research result is claimed. | Source ID; issuing authority; title; URL; jurisdiction; effective/version date; accessed date; excerpt/paraphrase; claim supported; confidence; conflict; reviewer status. | Assistant may collect and compare primary-source text; do not determine legal applicability, licensing sufficiency, or compliance without the authorized specialist. | Which jurisdiction/activity/applicant facts control, and which authority may determine applicability and release the conclusion? | The client research owner confirms the business question and scope; a jurisdiction-qualified licensing, legal, or compliance reviewer determines applicability and approves any released conclusion. Assignments and decisions remain pending unless documented. | Draft — cited evidence recorded; authorized review pending |

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

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

| Brief section | Supported gap | Source input ID | Required scope input | Proposed primary-source method | Evidence-log field | Interpretation boundary | Specialist question | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Research brief blocked at scope definition. | M04-I01 identifies missing jurisdiction and authority; no answer supplied. | M04-I01 (F08) | Jurisdiction, activity, applicant/entity, location, date, decision, and authority standard not supplied. | Method proposed only; no source searched or result verified. | No evidence-log row can be completed before scope and source authority are defined. | Specialist applicability decision remains outside assistant authority. | Pending qualified licensing/legal/compliance reviewer. | Not supplied — identify the client research owner and the jurisdiction-qualified licensing, legal, or compliance reviewer before research conclusions are released. | Blocked — required evidence or authorized decision not supplied |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M04-A02 · Primary-source log** — Produce a bounded, reviewable primary-source log from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M04-I01 and address M04-EC01, M04-EC02. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”
2. **M04-A03 · Research findings table** — Produce a bounded, reviewable research findings table from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M04-I01 and address M04-EC03. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”
3. **M04-A04 · Open-question register** — Produce a bounded, reviewable open-question register from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M04-I01 and address M04-EC03, M04-EC04. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

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

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **Stop** | Stop research conclusions when jurisdiction, decision purpose, date, source authority, or qualified specialist review is absent. |
| **Go** | Proceed only to protocol review after scope, source hierarchy, evidence fields, limitations, and reviewer are defined. |
| **Escalate** | Escalate legal, regulatory, licensing, or professional interpretation to the qualified subject reviewer. |

### Completion test

- [ ] Required scope inputs and source hierarchy are explicit.
- [ ] Source text, summary, interpretation, limitation, and specialist question are distinct.
- [ ] No research, official source, citation, conclusion, or professional advice 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M04-A01 | M04-EC01 | M04-I01 (F08) | The licensing research request omits jurisdiction and source authority. | State the supplied condition with its limitation and frame the decision that an authorized reviewer must make. Cite M04-I01 (F08) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed clarified research brief or an operational result. |

#### Legacy known-gap trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Missing evidence | Why it matters | Authorized owner or reviewer | Bounded next step | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M04-A02 | M04-EC01 | The packet does not supply the complete live records, approvals, or execution results needed to finish the primary-source log. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M04-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete. | Authorized client or operating manager | Record the missing evidence in M04-A02, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise. | Open — not supplied |

### Decision prompt

**M04-I01:** What bounded decision can the Authorized client or operating manager make from M04-I01, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?

### Artifact-build tables

### M04-A01 · Clarified research brief

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

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

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

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M04-EC01:** Identifies jurisdiction, decision purpose, date, and source hierarchy as required inputs rather than obtained facts
- **M04-EC02:** Defines how current official primary material would be prioritized and limitations recorded
- **M04-EC03:** Separates future source text, summary, interpretation, and specialist question fields
- **M04-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

| Brief section | Supported gap | Source input ID | Required scope input | Proposed primary-source method | Evidence-log field | Interpretation boundary | Specialist question | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 04A01R-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 04A01R-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 04A01R-03 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 04A01R-04 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 04A01R-05 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 04A01R-06 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 04A01R-07 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 04A01R-08 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M04-I01).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M04-EC01) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Authorized client or operating manager is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### M04-A02 · Primary-source log

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

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

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

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M04-EC01:** Identifies jurisdiction, decision purpose, date, and source hierarchy as required inputs rather than obtained facts
- **M04-EC02:** Defines how current official primary material would be prioritized and limitations recorded

| Entry ID | Issue or event | Evidence and source ID | Risk or impact | Owner | Bounded next step | Review point | 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-I01).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M04-EC01, M04-EC02) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Authorized client or operating manager is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### M04-A03 · Research findings table

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

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

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

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M04-EC03:** Separates future source text, summary, interpretation, and specialist question fields

| Item ID | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Criterion or required state | Gap or learner proposal | Owner or reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 04A03R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 04A03R-02 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M04-I01).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M04-EC03) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Authorized client or operating manager is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### M04-A04 · Open-question register

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

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

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

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M04-EC03:** Separates future source text, summary, interpretation, and specialist question fields
- **M04-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

| Entry ID | Issue or event | Evidence and source ID | Risk or impact | Owner | Bounded next step | Review point | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 04A04R-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 04A04R-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M04-I01).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (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 Authorized client or operating manager 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 · Clarified research brief | 8 | M04-EC01, M04-EC02, M04-EC03, M04-EC04 | M04-I01 |
| M04-A02 · Primary-source log | 2 | M04-EC01, M04-EC02 | M04-I01 |
| M04-A03 · Research findings table | 2 | M04-EC03 | M04-I01 |
| M04-A04 · Open-question register | 2 | M04-EC03, M04-EC04 | M04-I01 |

### Decision and revision record

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

### Evidence-criteria checklist

- [ ] **M04-EC01:** Identifies jurisdiction, decision purpose, date, and source hierarchy as required inputs rather than obtained facts
- [ ] **M04-EC02:** Defines how current official primary material would be prioritized and limitations recorded
- [ ] **M04-EC03:** Separates future source text, summary, interpretation, and specialist question fields
- [ ] **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 — Communicate and escalate

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

**Prompt:** Respond to the guarantee, suppression, and unsigned-contract requests without inventing authority.

**Deliverable:** Three client-safe message drafts and linked escalation starters; suppression, stop-control, and contract-review actions remain pending authorized execution.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M05-I01 | case-fact | F09 | A draft message makes an unsupported thirty-day funding guarantee. | |
| M05-I02 | case-fact | F10 | A prospect requests suppression while an automated sequence remains active. | |
| M05-I03 | case-fact | F11 | The assistant is asked to represent an unsigned contract as approved. | |
| M05-B01 | case-brief | CB01 | Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment. | |
| M05-S01 | assignment-scope | F09, F10, F11 | Build a starter version of “Three client-safe message drafts and linked escalation starters; suppression, stop-control, and contract-review actions remain pending authorized execution.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it. | |

### Completion boundary

Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F09, 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 F09, F10, and F11; preserve the unsupported funding guarantee, active sequence after suppression request, and unsigned-contract approval request as three separate scenarios.
- [ ] STOP “Communicate and escalate” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F09, F10, and F11; preserve the unsupported funding guarantee, active sequence after suppression request, and unsigned-contract approval request as three separate scenarios. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized client process owner, with security, privacy, payment, contract, or subject review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result.

### Operating procedure

1. Create one unapproved message row for each of the guarantee, suppression, and unsigned-contract scenarios.
2. Remove the thirty-day guarantee and replace it with evidence-bounded process language pending owner approval.
3. Acknowledge the suppression request and call for the approved stop control without claiming the sequence stopped.
4. Refuse to represent the unsigned contract as approved and request authorized contract-status confirmation.
5. State supplied fact, likely impact, urgency, decision owner, and decision needed without inventing a result.
6. Final-QC audience, purpose, supported facts, wording, prohibited claim, reviewer, and unapproved/pending status.

### Field-by-field guidance — M05-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| Draft ID | Draft ID: Assign one stable identifier that remains unchanged across review, correction, escalation, and closure records. Cite M05-I01 (F09), M05-I02 (F10); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing record identity. Do not encode an approval, result, owner identity, or live-system value inside the identifier. Review: the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Scenario | Select one supplied communication risk and keep it separate: unsupported funding guarantee at M05-I01 (F09), active automation after a suppression request at M05-I02 (F10), or an unsigned contract represented as approved at M05-I03 (F11). Mark channel, identity, and outcome not supplied when absent. Never merge scenarios or imply the requested action occurred. Keep pending for the scenario-specific owner and reviewer. |
| Audience or purpose | Identify the specific external recipient and internal decision audience, plus whether the draft acknowledges, clarifies, refuses, or requests a control decision. Use M05-I01 (F09), M05-I02 (F10), or M05-I03 (F11); mark the approved channel and identity-verification method not supplied when absent. Do not address unrelated recipients or expose unrelated data. Escalate to the authorized communications and subject-control owners. |
| Supported facts and source input ID | Supported facts and source input ID: List the exact module input ID beside every material statement, adding its fact ID when present. Cite M05-I01 (F09), M05-I02 (F10), M05-I03 (F11); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing citation trace. Do not cite the case brief as approval or cite an input that does not support the statement. Review: the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Proposed wording | For Proposed wording, write the exact client-safe sentence: preserve the supplied fact, name the unresolved control or decision, and request action from the authorized role. No “Communicate and escalate” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing client-safe wording. Never add a guarantee, imply approval, report suppression as complete, or represent any live action as performed. Keep pending for qualified language and subject reviewers. |
| Prohibited claim or action | Name the exact unsupported representation or unauthorized action: guarantee funding from M05-I01 (F09), report suppression complete without evidence from M05-I02 (F10), or call the unsigned contract approved from M05-I03 (F11). If an approved alternative is not supplied, request it. Do not soften or repeat the prohibited claim as fact. Escalate to the claims, sequence/privacy, or contract owner as applicable. |
| Decision or control requested | Decision or control requested: Write a stop/go/escalate rule with its prerequisite, authorized decision role, evidence gate, and pending outcome. Cite M05-I02 (F10), M05-I03 (F11); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing decision gate. Do not execute the control, commit funds, release work, or claim a decision occurred in this exercise. Review: the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Reviewer | For Reviewer, name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied. No “Communicate and escalate” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing decision authority. Never invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Keep pending for the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Status | Select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required for Status. Evidence: M05-I02 (F10), M05-I03 (F11); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Escalate to the client process owner and any required specialist. |

### Completed supported example — M05-A01

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

| Draft ID | Scenario | Audience or purpose | Supported facts and source input ID | Proposed wording | Prohibited claim or action | Decision or control requested | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| M05-A01-EX-01 | Prospect asks to stop messages while the automated sequence remains active (M05-I02, F10). | Draft to the prospect for acknowledgment and to the authorized sequence owner for a suppression decision; exact channel and identity-verification requirements are not supplied. | Suppression request and active-sequence state only — M05-I02 (F10). No suppression completion is supplied. | Learner draft for review: “We are reviewing your request to stop automated messages. The supplied record still shows the sequence as active, so the authorized owner must confirm suppression before we state it is complete.” Not sent. | Do not say suppression is complete, deactivate the sequence without authority, expose unrelated data, repeat the funding guarantee, or represent the unsigned contract as approved. | Authorized sequence/privacy owner to verify the requester, apply the approved suppression process, preserve evidence, and confirm the truthful response state; no action is claimed. | The authorized sequence owner verifies suppression state, the privacy owner confirms requester and handling controls, and the client-communications owner approves the truthful response. Assignments, action, and release remain pending unless documented. | Draft — cited evidence recorded; authorized review pending |

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

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

| Draft ID | Scenario | Audience or purpose | Supported facts and source input ID | Proposed wording | Prohibited claim or action | Decision or control requested | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| M05-A01-GAP-01 | Suppression request documented; request channel, identity verification, and sequence owner not supplied. | Not supplied — approved recipient/channel and internal decision audience. | M05-I02 (F10) only; no completion evidence. | Draft pending privacy/process review; no released message supplied. | Completion, guarantee, and contract-approval claims remain prohibited without evidence. | Pending authorized suppression/privacy owner; execution and result not supplied. | Not supplied — identify the sequence, privacy, and client-communications owners before action or message release. | Blocked — required evidence or authorized decision not supplied |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M05-A02 · Suppression escalation starter** — Produce a bounded, reviewable suppression escalation starter from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 1 row from M05-I02 and address M05-EC02. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”
2. **M05-A03 · Contract-review escalation starter** — Produce a bounded, reviewable contract-review escalation starter from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 1 row from M05-I03 and address M05-EC03. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

#### M05-A02 · Suppression escalation starter

**Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work.

**Criterion demonstrated:** M05-EC02

**Why this row is included:** Combines respectful acknowledgment with an explicit control request and never converts routing into proof that automation stopped.

| Record ID | Supported facts | Source input ID | Decision or action pending | Owner or reviewer | Evidence needed | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| M05-A02-M05-EC02-EX01 | Completed fictional learner example. Supplied evidence — M05-I02: A prospect requests suppression while an automated sequence remains active. Applied control — Combines respectful acknowledgment with an explicit control request and never converts routing into proof that automation stopped. | M05-I02 | Acknowledges the suppression request and calls for the approved stop control without claiming that automation stopped. Learner-applied control: Combines respectful acknowledgment with an explicit control request and never converts routing into proof that automation stopped. Record the evidence gap, route it to the authorized role, and leave execution and approval pending. | Reviewer: Authorized marketing-operations/privacy reviewer | Status: Urgent pending — stop control not claimed complete | Urgent pending — stop control not claimed complete |

#### M05-A03 · Contract-review escalation starter

**Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work.

**Criterion demonstrated:** M05-EC03

**Why this row is included:** States facts, reputational/contractual impact, urgency, owner role, and decision needed without inventing a legal result or completed handoff.

| Record ID | Supported facts | Source input ID | Decision or action pending | Owner or reviewer | Evidence needed | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| M05-A03-M05-EC03-EX01 | Completed fictional learner example. Supplied evidence — M05-I03: The assistant is asked to represent an unsigned contract as approved. Applied control — States facts, reputational/contractual impact, urgency, owner role, and decision needed without inventing a legal result or completed handoff. | M05-I03 | States supplied facts, impact, urgency, owner field, and decision needed without inventing results. Learner-applied control: States facts, reputational/contractual impact, urgency, owner role, and decision needed without inventing a legal result or completed handoff. Record the evidence gap, route it to the authorized role, and leave execution and approval pending. | Reviewer: Authorized contract/legal and business owners | Proposed wording: The supplied record does not show a signature or approval. Please have the authorized contract owner confirm status and approved wording before release. I will keep the draft labeled pending. \| Decision or control requested: Urgent decision from the authorized contract owner: confirm status, approved representation, owner, and release route; results not supplied. \| Status: Blocked — decision and evidence pending | Blocked — decision and evidence pending |

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **Stop** | Stop any message that guarantees outcomes, claims suppression completed, or represents an unsigned contract as approved. |
| **Go** | Proceed to human review when each draft cites facts, removes unsupported authority, and states the pending decision/control. |
| **Escalate** | Escalate guarantees to commercial/compliance, suppression to privacy/marketing operations, and contract status to authorized legal/commercial owners. |

### Completion test

- [ ] Three distinct scenario drafts are present.
- [ ] F09/F10/F11 are routed to the correct authority boundary.
- [ ] No message is sent and no funding, suppression, or contract result is claimed.

### Secondary evidence-trace crosswalk

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

#### Legacy worked-starter trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Input | Supported value | How to use it | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M05-A01 | M05-EC01 | M05-I01 (F09) | A draft message makes an unsupported thirty-day funding guarantee. | Translate the supplied condition into bounded draft language while excluding unsupported promises, outcomes, or approvals. Cite M05-I01 (F09) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed client-safe message drafts 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 client-safe message drafts. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M05-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete. | Authorized client or operating manager | 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-I03:** What bounded decision can the Authorized client or operating manager make from M05-I03, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?

### Artifact-build tables

### M05-A01 · Client-safe message drafts

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable client-safe message drafts from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals.

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

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

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M05-EC01:** Removes unsupported outcome and approval claims

| Draft ID | Scenario | Audience or purpose | Supported facts and source input ID | Proposed wording | Prohibited claim or action | Decision or control requested | Reviewer | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| MESSAGE-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| MESSAGE-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| MESSAGE-03 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M05-I01).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M05-EC01) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Authorized client or operating manager is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### M05-A02 · Suppression escalation starter

**Purpose:** Produce a bounded, reviewable suppression escalation starter 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:** Acknowledges the suppression request and calls for the approved stop control without claiming that automation stopped

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

**Completion checks**

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

### M05-A03 · Contract-review escalation starter

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

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

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

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M05-EC03:** States supplied facts, impact, urgency, owner field, and decision needed without inventing results

| Record ID | Supported facts | Source input ID | Decision or action pending | Owner or reviewer | Evidence needed | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 05A03R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M05-I03).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M05-EC03) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Authorized client or operating manager 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 · Client-safe message drafts | 3 | M05-EC01 | M05-I01, M05-I02, M05-I03 |
| M05-A02 · Suppression escalation starter | 1 | M05-EC02 | M05-I02 |
| M05-A03 · Contract-review escalation starter | 1 | M05-EC03 | M05-I03 |

### Decision and revision record

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

### Evidence-criteria checklist

- [ ] **M05-EC01:** Removes unsupported outcome and approval claims
- [ ] **M05-EC02:** Acknowledges the suppression request and calls for the approved stop control without claiming that automation stopped
- [ ] **M05-EC03:** States supplied facts, impact, urgency, owner field, and decision needed without inventing results

### 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 — Protect and review service

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

**Prompt:** Design access, confidential-data, closure, and service-quality controls for ongoing work.

**Deliverable:** An access matrix, closure checklist, quality scorecard, and simulated weekly review.

### Supplied-input register

| Input ID | Kind | Source record(s) | What the packet supplies | Where I used it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M06-I01 | case-fact | F01 | The intake includes twenty-seven tasks but only nine have due dates. | |
| M06-I02 | case-fact | F02 | Seven tasks name an approver and five carry confidential-client labels. | |
| M06-I03 | case-fact | F06 | A photographed credit card was sent through chat for travel booking. | |
| M06-I04 | case-fact | F07 | A partner requested login using a personal password. | |
| M06-I05 | case-fact | F12 | Current reporting counts completed tasks but omits quality, control, and outcome measures. | |
| 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, F06, F07, F12 | Build a starter version of “An access matrix, closure checklist, quality scorecard, and simulated weekly review.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it. | |

### Completion boundary

Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F01, F02, F06, F07, F12, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.

### Prerequisite check

- [ ] Confirm F01, F02, F06, F07, and F12; treat systems, identities, roles, access grants, retention, incident handling, closure records, and service-quality results as not supplied.
- [ ] STOP “Protect and review service” when this prerequisite cannot be confirmed: Confirm F01, F02, F06, F07, and F12; treat systems, identities, roles, access grants, retention, incident handling, closure records, and service-quality results as not supplied. Record the exact missing or conflicting evidence, keep the artifact blocked, and route it to the authorized client process owner, with security, privacy, payment, contract, or subject review when applicable. Do not execute the workflow, make the specialist judgment, record approval, or claim an operational result.

### Operating procedure

1. List task/workflow access classes and confidential-client handling needs without inventing systems or user identities.
2. Define learner-proposed unique identity, least privilege, approved credential, periodic review, and revocation controls.
3. Use the photographed card and personal-password request as unsafe-method examples; do not reproduce or use sensitive values.
4. Add safe storage, sharing, retention, incident-reporting, and service-closure evidence requirements with authorized owners.
5. Keep service-quality metrics—accepted outcomes, rework, misses, unsafe requests, exceptions, and feedback—in the linked scorecard, not fabricated in access rows.
6. Final-QC system/role scope, access basis, evidence, owner, review/revocation trigger, confidential-data boundary, and pending status.

### Field-by-field guidance — M06-A01

| Field | What high-quality completion requires |
|---|---|
| Control ID | Control ID: Assign one stable identifier that remains unchanged across review, correction, escalation, and closure records. Cite M06-I05 (F12); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing record identity. Do not encode an approval, result, owner identity, or live-system value inside the identifier. Review: the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Role, system, or data class | For Role, system, or data class, define minimum authorized access, purpose, approved method, storage/retention rule, review trigger, and incident route. Cite M06-I02 (F02), M06-I03 (F06); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing access control. Never use personal credentials, transmit sensitive data through an unapproved channel, or claim access was granted/revoked. Keep pending for the authorized security or privacy owner. |
| Supported evidence | Transcribe the smallest decision-relevant fact supported by the cited module input and preserve its supplied confidence or uncertainty for Supported evidence. Evidence: M06-I01 (F01), M06-I02 (F02), M06-I03 (F06); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not convert a report, allegation, estimate, or provisional statement into a verified fact. Escalate to the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Source input ID | Source input ID: List the exact module input ID beside every material statement, adding its fact ID when present. Cite M06-I01 (F01), M06-I02 (F02), M06-I03 (F06); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing citation trace. Do not cite the case brief as approval or cite an input that does not support the statement. Review: the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Permitted access or purpose | For Permitted access or purpose, state the precise action, inference, proxy, data use, or claim that is allowed or prohibited and pair any refusal with a safe authorized alternative. Cite M06-I02 (F02), M06-I03 (F06); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing safety boundary. Never write a vague warning that leaves the learner unable to decide what to stop or what is safe. Keep pending for the authorized security or privacy owner. |
| Prohibited method | State that photographed-card handling through chat at M06-I03 (F06) and personal-password login at M06-I04 (F07) are not acceptable access methods; pair each refusal with a request for an approved payment workflow or organization-managed delegated access. If the approved alternative is not supplied, keep access blocked. Do not retain, reuse, or test the unsafe credential or payment data. Escalate to payment and system-security owners. |
| Approval or evidence required | List the authorization record needed for the access or data class: system owner, role and purpose, delegated credential method, data classification, approved payment channel, retention rule, and incident route. M06-I02 (F02), M06-I03 (F06), and M06-I04 (F07) establish the confidentiality and unsafe-method triggers; approvals remain not supplied. Do not use F12 service-quality reporting as access approval. Review: security, privacy, and payment owners. |
| Review or revocation trigger | For Review or revocation trigger, record the supplied controlled revision, effective date, review period, or trigger with its source; otherwise state which temporal value is not supplied. No “Protect and review service” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing temporal control. Never reuse a stale value, calculate a date-specific result without a date, or treat receipt date as effective date. Keep pending for the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Storage, retention, or incident route | Define minimum authorized access, purpose, approved method, storage/retention rule, review trigger, and incident route for Storage, retention, or incident route. Evidence: no direct “Protect and review service” source fact; mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not use personal credentials, transmit sensitive data through an unapproved channel, or claim access was granted/revoked. Escalate to the authorized security or privacy owner. |
| Linked quality or closure control | Linked quality or closure control: Write a stop/go/escalate rule with its prerequisite, authorized decision role, evidence gate, and pending outcome. Cite M06-I05 (F12); if insufficient, mark “Not supplied” and name the missing decision gate. Do not execute the control, commit funds, release work, or claim a decision occurred in this exercise. Review: the authorized quality owner and required specialist. |
| Owner | For Owner, name the authorized role that must review or decide, then show the decision as pending unless an authorized record is supplied. No “Protect and review service” source fact supplies it; mark “Not supplied” and request the missing decision authority. Never invent a person's name, infer authority from job title, or record approval from silence. Keep pending for the client process owner and any required specialist. |
| Status | Select a truthful state—draft, open, blocked, pending review, or not supplied—and tie it to the evidence still required for Status. Evidence: M06-I04 (F07); mark “Not supplied” when absent. Do not mark complete, accepted, verified, distributed, or closed without the corresponding record. Escalate to the client process owner and any required specialist. |

### 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.

| Control ID | Role, system, or data class | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Permitted access or purpose | Prohibited method | Approval or evidence required | Review or revocation trigger | Storage, retention, or incident route | Linked quality or closure control | Owner | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| M06-A01-EX-01 | Travel/payment data and business-system credentials; client-confidential task records are separate data classes. | M06-I01 (F01) records “The intake includes twenty-seven tasks but only nine have due dates.”; M06-I02 (F02) records “Seven tasks name an approver and five carry confidential-client labels.”; M06-I03 (F06) records “A photographed credit card was sent through chat for travel booking.”. Preserve this as the supplied observation with its source and confidence; add no unstated conclusion. | M06-I01 (F01); M06-I02 (F02); M06-I03 (F06); M06-I04 (F07); M06-I05 (F12) | Learner-proposed minimum access — organization-managed delegated credentials and approved payment workflow only for the authorized business purpose; specific system/role is not supplied. | No photographed-card handling through chat and no personal-password login (M06-I03, F06; M06-I04, F07). | Documented system-owner authorization, role/purpose, approved credential method, data classification, payment method, storage/retention rule, and incident route. | Proposed triggers: purpose/role change, access anomaly, unsafe credential/payment request, client exit, incident, or scheduled review; exact cadence is not supplied. | Not supplied — approved storage, minimum retention/deletion, incident intake, evidence preservation, notification owner, and closure record. | Completed-task count omits quality, control, and outcome measures (M06-I05, F12); do not treat count as service quality or closure. | System/security owner governs delegated credentials; privacy/data owner governs confidential task records; approved-payment owner governs travel/payment data; service-quality owner governs the linked closure measure. Named assignees and decisions remain pending unless documented. | Draft — cited evidence recorded; authorized review pending |

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

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

| Control ID | Role, system, or data class | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Permitted access or purpose | Prohibited method | Approval or evidence required | Review or revocation trigger | Storage, retention, or incident route | Linked quality or closure control | Owner | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| M06-A01-GAP-01 | Exact systems, roles, and data inventory not supplied. | M06-I05 (F12) records “Current reporting counts completed tasks but omits quality, control, and outcome measures.”; M06-I04 (F07) records “A partner requested login using a personal password.”; M06-I03 (F06) records “A photographed credit card was sent through chat for travel booking.”. Additional support is not supplied — the exact evidence needed to support any additional claim for “Supported evidence”; do not infer the absent fact. | M06-I05 (F12); M06-I04 (F07); M06-I03 (F06); M06-I02 (F02); M06-I01 (F01) | Not supplied — delegated scope and purpose authorization. | Unsafe card/password examples identified; approved alternatives not supplied. | System/privacy/payment owner authorization absent. | Not supplied — events, cadence, and owner. | Not supplied — no handling or incident outcome claimed. | Open — quality/control/outcome definition and evidence missing. | Not supplied — identify the system/security, privacy/data, approved-payment, and service-quality owners before access or closure controls advance. | Blocked — required evidence or authorized decision not supplied |

### Supporting artifact build sequence

1. **M06-A02 · Service closure checklist** — Produce a bounded, reviewable service closure checklist from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M06-I02 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 · Service quality scorecard** — Produce a bounded, reviewable service quality scorecard from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M06-I02, M06-I05 and address M06-EC03. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”
3. **M06-A04 · Weekly service review** — Produce a bounded, reviewable weekly service review from cited packet evidence while exposing unsupported fields and required approvals. Build 2 rows from M06-I03, M06-I04 and address M06-EC04. Use only the scoped case-fact inputs below. Cite an input ID for each supported statement; label proposed structures “learner proposal” and unavailable evidence “not supplied.”

### Completed supporting-artifact examples

#### M06-A03 · Service quality scorecard

**Reference-only completed row.** Use it to understand the evidence boundary; do not present it as your own completed work.

**Criterion demonstrated:** M06-EC03

**Why this row is included:** Turns a completion-count dashboard into an outcome-and-control measurement design while protecting access and avoiding invented performance results.

| Metric | Definition | Evidence source | Provisional threshold | Owner | Review cadence | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Service quality scorecard: Measures accepted outcomes, rework, misses, unsafe requests, exceptions, and client feedback | Turns a completion-count dashboard into an outcome-and-control measurement design while protecting access and avoiding invented performance results. Count only evidence-backed eligible records; preserve exceptions and unresolved dependencies. | M06-I02; M06-I05 | Not supplied — learner must propose a threshold only after baseline evidence and authorized review. | Owner: Authorized client service-quality and access-control owners | Not supplied — learner proposes a dated review cadence for authorized approval; no review occurred. | Proposed control set — evidence and approval pending |

### Stop / Go / Escalate

| Decision | Rule |
|---|---|
| **Stop** | Stop access or protected-data handling when unique identity, least privilege, approved channel, authority, or incident/retention control is absent. |
| **Go** | Proceed to access-design review when each role/system pairing has a justified purpose, owner, review cadence, and revocation trigger. |
| **Escalate** | Escalate credentials and payment data to security/privacy/payment owners and quality/control outcomes to the service owner. |

### Completion test

- [ ] Least privilege, unique identity, review, revocation, storage, sharing, retention, and incident routes are explicit.
- [ ] F02/F06/F07 are visible without sensitive values.
- [ ] No access grant, incident action, service closure, score, or result is invented.

### Secondary evidence-trace crosswalk

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

#### Legacy worked-starter trace

| Artifact | Criterion | Input | Supported value | How to use it | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M06-A01 | M06-EC01 | M06-I01 (F01) | The intake includes twenty-seven tasks but only nine have due dates. | Place the supplied condition in the appropriate comparison row and leave every unsupplied requirement visibly open. Cite M06-I01 (F01) in the row. | This is one evidence-backed starter entry, not a completed access matrix 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 access matrix. | Without that evidence, the learner cannot truthfully satisfy M06-EC01 or represent this artifact as complete. | Authorized client or operating manager | Record the missing evidence in M06-A01, name the authorized reviewer, and leave the outcome pending; do not obtain or simulate the live record in this exercise. | Open — not supplied |

### Decision prompt

**M06-I05:** What bounded decision can the Authorized client or operating manager make from M06-I05, and what must remain pending until the missing evidence or approval is supplied?

### Artifact-build tables

### M06-A01 · Access matrix

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

**Scoped case-fact inputs:** M06-I01, M06-I02, M06-I03, M06-I04, M06-I05

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

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M06-EC01:** Uses unique least-privilege access and periodic review

| Control ID | Role, system, or data class | Supported evidence | Source input ID | Permitted access or purpose | Prohibited method | Approval or evidence required | Review or revocation trigger | Storage, retention, or incident route | Linked quality or closure control | Owner | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 06A01R-01 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A01R-02 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A01R-03 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A01R-04 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A01R-05 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A01R-06 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A01R-07 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A01R-08 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M06-I01).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M06-EC01) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Authorized client or operating manager is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### M06-A02 · Service closure checklist

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

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

- **M06-EC02:** Defines safe storage, sharing, retention, and incident reporting

| Check ID | Control or check | Evidence required | Source input ID | Owner | Result | Exception 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).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M06-EC02) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Authorized client or operating manager is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### M06-A03 · Service quality scorecard

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

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

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

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M06-EC03:** Measures accepted outcomes, rework, misses, unsafe requests, exceptions, and client feedback

| Metric | Definition | Evidence source | Provisional threshold | Owner | Review cadence | 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-I02, M06-I05).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M06-EC03) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Authorized client or operating manager is named for decisions or review; no approval or execution is implied.

### M06-A04 · Weekly service review

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

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

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

**Mapped evidence criteria**

- **M06-EC04:** Cites the supplied input IDs for material statements and marks omitted operational records or results “not supplied” rather than fabricating them

| Step or milestone | Trigger or date | Evidence and source ID | Owner | Gate or threshold | Dependency or gap | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 06A04R-01 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |
| 06A04R-02 |  |  |  |  |  | Not started |

**Completion checks**

- [ ] Every supported entry identifies and cites at least one applicable scoped case-fact input (M06-I03, M06-I04).
- [ ] Every mapped rubric criterion (M06-EC04) is addressed in the artifact or a named evidence gap.
- [ ] Unsupported fields remain “not supplied” or are explicitly labeled as a learner proposal.
- [ ] The Authorized client or operating manager 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 · Access matrix | 8 | M06-EC01 | M06-I01, M06-I02, M06-I03, M06-I04, M06-I05 |
| M06-A02 · Service closure checklist | 2 | M06-EC02 | M06-I02 |
| M06-A03 · Service quality scorecard | 2 | M06-EC03 | M06-I02, M06-I05 |
| M06-A04 · Weekly service review | 2 | M06-EC04 | M06-I03, M06-I04 |

### Decision and revision record

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

### Evidence-criteria checklist

- [ ] **M06-EC01:** Uses unique least-privilege access and periodic review
- [ ] **M06-EC02:** Defines safe storage, sharing, retention, and incident reporting
- [ ] **M06-EC03:** Measures accepted outcomes, rework, misses, unsafe requests, exceptions, and client feedback
- [ ] **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.