{
  "example_kind": "invented job and manual worksheet",
  "slug": "service-request-evidence-gap",
  "title": "Turn “the report is wrong” into an investigation someone can start",
  "layout": "coach",
  "story": "When a complaint has no reproducible example, I want the smallest relevant comparison so we can investigate the mismatch without guessing a fix.",
  "problem": "A customer says a report is wrong but sends no usable comparison. Their expectation is three region rows; the observed report shows two.",
  "symptoms": [
    "A broad complaint is assigned as if its cause were known.",
    "The investigation asks for a whole account export instead of one relevant example.",
    "A corrective task is promised before the mismatch can be compared."
  ],
  "failed_workaround": "Starting implementation or collecting every account detail can add work without identifying which result is disputed.",
  "before": "Report wrong. Please fix the dashboard.",
  "after": "Investigation intake: identify the report and observation period, then compare the expected region rows with the observed rows. Request one redacted comparison showing the missing row; do not request an entire account export. The analyst will reproduce that bounded mismatch before proposing a correction or explaining the relevant filter.",
  "success_check": "The analyst can start a bounded comparison and the customer knows what useful finding to expect next.",
  "choices": [
    [
      "The report identity or context is missing",
      "Ask for that bounded information",
      "Different views can make an apparent mismatch incomparable."
    ],
    [
      "A comparable mismatch is available",
      "Investigate its cause",
      "Reproduction evidence comes before a corrective commitment."
    ],
    [
      "The result follows a relevant filter",
      "Explain the rule and actual next choice",
      "Not every unexpected result is a software defect."
    ]
  ],
  "route": [
    {
      "label": "Own the investigation result",
      "capability": "task-record",
      "action": "Track the reproduction/comparison task with the responsible analyst.",
      "human_check": "Do not relabel the complaint as a confirmed software defect."
    },
    {
      "label": "Preserve the minimal evidence",
      "capability": "task-comment",
      "action": "Record the authorized expected-versus-observed pair and reporting context.",
      "human_check": "Avoid unnecessary customer account contents."
    },
    {
      "label": "Report the finding checkpoint",
      "capability": "daily-report",
      "action": "Explain whether reproduction, filter clarification or another precise question is next.",
      "human_check": "A human reviews the finding before any corrective commitment."
    }
  ],
  "editor": {
    "heading": "Prepare a next-action brief",
    "fields": [
      {
        "key": "report",
        "label": "Disputed output",
        "example": "Regional task report",
        "help": "Name the output the complaint concerns."
      },
      {
        "key": "context",
        "label": "Observation context",
        "example": "Current project view for the agreed report period",
        "help": "Keep scope and time explicit."
      },
      {
        "key": "expected",
        "label": "Expected result",
        "example": "Three named region rows",
        "help": "Describe the concrete expectation."
      },
      {
        "key": "observed",
        "label": "Observed result",
        "example": "Two region rows; one expected row absent",
        "help": "Use the same unit and scope."
      },
      {
        "key": "next",
        "label": "Investigation output and owner",
        "example": "Analyst compares one redacted pair before proposing a correction",
        "help": "Define an evidence result, not a guessed fix."
      }
    ],
    "template": "Reporting investigation brief\nOutput: {report}.\nContext: {context}.\nExpected: {expected}.\nObserved: {observed}.\nNext owned result: {next}.\nKeep the cause unresolved until the comparison supports it."
  },
  "limitations": "The sample is invented. The editor does not inspect customer records, detect defects or open support tickets.",
  "tasks": [
    [
      "Identify the disputed output",
      "Service analyst",
      "Report identity, relevant period and expected result are recorded."
    ],
    [
      "Request the bounded comparison",
      "Customer contact",
      "One authorized expected-versus-observed pair names the missing region row."
    ],
    [
      "Return a useful investigation finding",
      "Case owner",
      "The next output is a reproduced mismatch, an explained filter or a specific remaining gap."
    ]
  ],
  "faqs": [
    [
      "What if screenshots cannot be shared?",
      "Use an authorized redacted description naming the expected and observed result, relevant period and disputed row."
    ],
    [
      "Should we create a correction task immediately?",
      "Track the investigation if useful, but keep implementation proposed until the evidence supports it."
    ],
    [
      "How does TeamBoost help here?",
      "Use a documented owned task and its context for the disputed output and next reproduction action. It does not establish a native support inbox or automatic report-error detection."
    ]
  ]
}