Illustrative artifact story

One vague requirement becomes delivery evidence.

The central RDD claim is easier to inspect when a requirement changes shape in public: prose becomes candidate behavior, behavior exposes discrepancy, discrepancy produces evidence.

This claims-service scenario is illustrative. It does not invent performance metrics. It shows how evidence changes commitment.

The starting requirement

Users should be able to approve eligible claims quickly.

The sentence sounds reasonable. It hides the important questions: Which users? Which claims? What makes a claim eligible? What must happen before approval? What does the customer hear? Which exceptions block the fast path?

Candidate reality

ScreenClaims list

Shows eligible, blocked, review-required, and exception states with representative data.

RoleAdjuster

Can approve, request supervisor review, or route to fraud review.

ActionApproval path

Includes temporary credit notice and customer notification timing.

ExceptionSupervisor override

Exposes where authority and customer communication diverge.

Disagreement found

Temporary credit mistaken for final settlementThe language creates a customer-expectation risk.
Tree-removal exception missingAn operationally common exception was absent from the initial prose.
Fraud flag should block fast approvalThe model exposed a rule that could not be optional.
Supervisor review happens before notificationThe process order changed once people operated the candidate.

Revised behavior

Before loop

Eligible claim -> approve -> temporary credit notice -> supervisor review if flagged.

Reality Loop decision

After loop

Eligible claim -> fraud and exception check -> supervisor review if required -> credit notice after review.

The revision is not a prettier prototype. It is a more honest interpretation of what the organization is willing to commission.

Baseline packet

Delivery baseline CLM-BL-0042

Accepted behavior: Fast approval path requires fraud and exception checks before customer notification.
Rejected alternative: General claims dashboard excluded from the first delivery slice.
Known risk: Fraud workflow remains partially understood and requires a separate Reality Check.
Required checks: Notification timing, audit trail, permissions, exception data source.