One consulting request.
Two supported dispositions.
See what a written finding, evidence map and reconstruction pack contribute to a selected operational decision.
Fully synthetic example. All parties, records and events are fabricated. Alternative branches must not be combined. No client result, legal opinion, software enforcement or measured benefit is represented.
One decision
Is a requested cash-forecast deliverable documented as included in the existing consulting engagement?
MIPECE’s illustrative work product is a short written finding, supported by a source-linked evidence map and a reconstruction of how the question arose. First establish what the existing consultant and client already resolve.
Two written findings
A — Existing handling sufficient
The supplied synthetic records establish that the requested forecast is included within the signed schedule’s stated limits. Existing scope review already resolves this question. Mira should coordinate the agreed client-input handoff with Noah and continue under the existing engagement. No additional MIPECE examination, new fee or new development is justified for this selected question. Actual work and acceptance remain unobserved.
B — Missing agreement record
The supplied synthetic records do not establish whether the requested forecast is included, because the referenced schedule is unavailable. Existing review has identified that gap. Mira should first obtain the governing schedule with Noah and record a supported scope disposition. The additional forecast work remains pending. If the records still do not resolve the scope, Mira and Noah must agree the deliverable, fee and timing in writing before that work begins. This does not establish a contract failure, debt or need for MIPECE development.
Evidence map — what supports the decision
| Claim | Sources | Existing handling / limit | Owner and minimum action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Selected request and baseline scope | C01–C03 | Record identity and relevance are fictional assertions, not independent verification. | Mira; compare the request with the governing scope. |
| A: request included within stated limits | C01–C03 + C04A only | Existing scope log already resolves inclusion; no new MIPECE work justified. | Mira coordinates agreed input handoff with Noah. |
| B: inclusion remains unestablished | C01–C03 + C04B only | Missing schedule detected; C04A is not evidence for B. | Mira obtains schedule with Noah; record disposition; additional work pending. |
Reconstruction pack — how the question developed
| Sequence | Retained event | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| T0 | Base scope and its referenced schedule identified. | Branch A has the schedule; B does not. |
| T1 | Bookkeeping deliverables received. | Receipt is separate from conformity and acceptance. |
| T2 | Client requests cash forecast. | Request does not itself authorize a scope or fee change. |
| T3-A | Existing log matches request to signed schedule. | Question resolved within the fixture; work not performed here. |
| T3-B | Existing review identifies missing schedule. | Question unresolved; retrieve source before proposing an addition. |
| T4 | Written finding prepared for review. | No actual participant response, implementation or outcome observed. |
Miniature source pack
C01 · Decision D-01 v1
Fictional Cedar Advisory must answer fictional Oak Manufacturing’s request for a weekly 13-week cash forecast by November 16, 2026. Question: is this requested deliverable documented as included in the current engagement? No additional work has begun.
Text SHA-256: f4bb4c106a6c3186d49746efdcbe28c426698a024ce4dd80aabe981b0a2f9bd8
C02 · Common base scope SC-01 v1
The base scope lists monthly bookkeeping reconciliation and a monthly management summary. It states that a listed signed scope schedule may add deliverables. Mira, the consultant engagement owner, and Noah, the client sponsor, must jointly approve any new scope or fee in writing before additional work starts. A request alone is not a scope amendment. No advance authority to bill new fees is granted.
Text SHA-256: 2a02c66975c1af5e3bea617f7475a405cf6a412a517aa05b76d48d6153891b00
C03 · Delivery and request DR-01 v1
The monthly reconciliation and summary were delivered and their receipt acknowledged. Scope conformity and final acceptance are not determined by that receipt. Noah subsequently requested the weekly 13-week cash forecast.
Text SHA-256: b2204f4920e1ecbab6e96dbe3503abad7b6ed02c4f766448f11fe44895f4b396
C04A · Branch A signed schedule S-01 v1
Complete fictional schedule incorporated into SC-01: one initial 13-week cash forecast and weekly updates for four weeks are included in the agreed fee, subject to client inputs. Noah’s request matches these limits. Mira and Noah’s existing scope log links this schedule to the request and identifies the input handoff. No fee addition or new scope authorization is required for this request.
Text SHA-256: e9f6912550fccdcdcf3018e4e817ed24f4aabc08e1b8fc4cba233b1b7cbdefa5
C04B · Branch B alternative record S-UNKNOWN v1
Alternative to C04A, not a later event: the base scope references a signed scope schedule, but its content is unavailable in the supplied record. Neither the request nor the delivered bookkeeping files establishes whether the forecast is included. Existing scope review flags the missing schedule; no additional work has started. No conclusion of included or excluded work is recorded.
Text SHA-256: b650a4edabf11d9177a7bb23faf2f6e6450d80b233f9803c15efc8b57940ac9c
Your reaction
What would MIPECE deliver in this example, and would it add anything to your existing consulting process?
Which part, if any, is unclear? “Our existing process already handles this” is a useful answer. No client records or further case description are requested.
Bring your own operational question.
A nonconfidential description is enough to begin. We first establish what your existing people and systems already resolve.
Discuss one operational question