Mission 02 · Field learning

Reframe an inherited engagement

Keep the original promise visible while field evidence exposes the exact contradiction and the human authority needed to change course.

Self-directed lesson

Field question: What did we inherit, what contradicts it, and who can authorize a bounded reframe?
Working artifact: Engagement reframe record
Effort: 90 minutes

You will learn

How to preserve the sold brief rather than silently rewriting history.
How claim-matched evidence separates occurrence, policy, technical behavior, and assertion.
How a safe fallback keeps delivery moving before disposition.

Field practice

Quote the inherited commitment and the representative evidence that contradicts it.
State one typed reframe with scope, limitations, and affected outputs.
Route continue discovery, bounded kickoff, defer, or stop to a named, scoped authority.

Before you begin

Bring the inherited promise, at least one contradictory source, and a safe fallback that does not require the disputed authority.

Learning objectives

Preserve the sold brief and chronology instead of silently rewriting history.
Express one material contradiction as a typed, source-linked reframe.
Route continue, bounded kickoff, defer, or stop to a named scoped authority.

Core lesson

What you need to know

Preserve before you propose

An inherited engagement has commercial and organizational history. Copy the original commitment, its source, and its revision into the record before proposing a change. A reframe is a new proposal linked to that preserved baseline, not an edit that makes the old promise disappear.

State the contradiction narrowly: which claim is disputed, what evidence contests it, why it matters to delivery, and which outputs depend on it. Cross-class conflicts remain contested until a human with direct or explicitly delegated authority records a scoped disposition.

Keep delivery moving safely

A good reframe includes a safe fallback. The fallback is the useful work that remains defensible while the decision is open—for example, classify and recommend while a specialist retains approval. It must not smuggle the disputed behavior back into the system under another name.

The proposed reframe should identify affected and unaffected outputs. Acceptance updates only dependency-linked projections; rejection or deferral preserves the current baseline and proposal history. Readiness is derived from the resulting evidence, constraints, disposition, and currency—it is never a model-authored status.

Make the decision reviewable

A disposition record needs the decision, scope, exact evidence passage, actor identity, authority basis, date, limitations, and next review condition. If authority is missing or stale, fail closed: preserve the proposal and make authority validation the next move.

Facilitate the review around claims rather than people. Show the inherited claim, the contesting passage, delivery consequence, proposed boundary, safe fallback, and exact decision requested. Ask each authority to accept, reject, defer, or narrow only the part within their remit. Close by reading back the scoped disposition, unchanged work, affected outputs, owner, and review trigger.

Worked field case

Automatic submission becomes assisted correction

The SOW promises automated resubmission, while policy and observed work require authenticated specialist approval.

Evidence available

SOW revision 3: the service automatically resubmits eligible corrected claims.
Security policy revision 8: only authenticated billing specialists may approve and submit.
Observed case: the specialist changes the recommended correction before submission.

Reasoning path

Preserve the SOW statement as the inherited commitment.
Propose a typed reframe: classification, evidence assembly, and recommendation are in scope; approval and submission remain human actions.
Route the reframe to product security and revenue-cycle authority with affected scope, architecture, and acceptance outputs listed.

Result

A bounded-kickoff disposition can authorize the smaller slice without pretending the original automatic-submission promise was fulfilled.

Practice exercise

Write one decisive reframe

Use live field evidence, a sanitized retrospective, or the synthetic case pack where sponsor intent, operator practice, policy, or system behavior materially disagree. Synthetic work can demonstrate reframe reasoning, but not customer disposition or authority.

Quote the inherited claim and its exact source.
Quote the contesting evidence and label its evidence basis and limitation.
Write one proposed reframe, safe fallback, and affected-output list.
Use the field-conversation kit to define the meeting agenda, disposition options, and scoped authority required for each.

Keep

A reframe record that supports acceptance, rejection, or deferral without erasing the inherited brief.

Review your work

Field rubric

The inherited claim remains immutable and visible.
The contradiction is material, narrow, and cited on both sides.
The safe fallback does not require disputed authority.
Disposition changes only the authorized scope and dependent outputs; synthetic practice records proposed consequences without claiming a real disposition occurred.

Complete when

One material conflict has a typed proposal and safe fallback.
A named authority and authority basis are recorded or explicitly unknown; synthetic work does not claim that the fictional actor made a real decision.
Accept, reject, and defer consequences are unambiguous.

Check your understanding

Would rejecting the reframe leave the original brief and downstream artifacts unchanged?

Working formats

Use the editable Word workbook for field-facing work. The source Markdown remains useful for technical records and versionable reference.

Download editable Word workbook View source Markdown

Guided study and progress

Open this mission in the guided school to confirm the exercise and rubric, save completion in this browser, and resume the ten-mission path.

Open guided mission

Compare and go deeper

This lesson is self-contained. Compare your work with the calibrated answer, then use the attributed references when you need governed detail or additional implementation practice.

Annotated answer FDE Guide reference ↗Attributed technical depth ↗