Route 01All six together
One-day Foundation
No introductory-course prerequisite. On-site delivery for six fits the supplied group rule. It may repeat material for the four experienced colleagues.
T1 T2 T3
Examples / Static reader
All eight situations.
The full authored examples, with their sources. No JavaScript is needed to read this page.
Training · Usual information
Fictional training example
Options for provider reviewKeep all six together. Or check the shorter route.
The foundation route meets the stated group and delivery rules. The shorter refresher is an option for four; two prior-learning records are still needed.
Route 02Shorter course
Half-day Refresher: four possible, two unconfirmed
Four have the stated prerequisite. Check the other two before offering the refresher to the whole team.
T1 T2 T4
Not shortlistedWrong format
Centre-only refresher
It does not meet the employer’s on-site request.
T1 T2
Who decides?
The provider confirms course suitability, prior-learning evidence, venue and dates. The employer then chooses. This is not a course recommendation or booking for a real learner.
A useful handoff, not another search result
“We would like all six colleagues together on-site. Could you confirm whether the one-day Foundation is suitable, or what evidence you need for the two unconfirmed colleagues to join the Refresher? Please confirm venue requirements and possible dates.”
Inspect the four sources
T1 · The employer’s request
Six colleagues want to train together, on-site. Four have a recorded introductory course; the other two have not supplied their prior-learning information. The employer prefers a refresher if it is suitable.
T2 · Invented course sheet · v1.0
Foundation: one day, no introductory-course prerequisite, on-site delivery listed. Refresher: half a day, prior introductory course required, on-site delivery listed. Centre refresher: half a day, prior introductory course required, centre only. These are fictional courses, not real qualifications.
T3 · Invented booking rules · v1.0
On-site Foundation and Refresher groups: four to eight people. The provider must confirm suitability, prior-learning evidence, venue and availability before booking. No dates or live places are supplied.
T4 · The agreed selection rule
Compare the stated goal, each person’s supplied prior learning, delivery format and group size. Keep an unknown as an unanswered question. Do not invent a date or resolve a conflict by guessing. Return options to the provider, not a booking.
This prewritten comparison brings together four invented sources and the stated selection rule. The browser displays the chosen scenario; it does not calculate course eligibility. No AI model, account connection, learner record or live availability is involved.
Usual example: both on-site routes are listed. Two prior-learning records are missing.
Training · One source missing
Fictional training example
Booking rules neededLearning routes are visible. On-site fit is not.
The course sheet still gives two possible learning routes. Without booking rules, do not tell this employer that a six-person on-site group can be accommodated.
FoundationLearning fit only
No stated prerequisite; delivery not confirmed
The course sheet lists on-site delivery, but the group-size and booking conditions are unavailable.
T2 T3
RefresherTwo separate checks
Check two records and the group rules
Four have the stated prior learning. The remaining two records and on-site conditions still need confirmation.
T1 T2 T3
Who decides?
The provider confirms course suitability, prior-learning evidence, venue and dates. The employer then chooses. This is not a course recommendation or booking for a real learner.
The next question
“Can you supply the approved on-site booking rules, including group size and venue conditions? We also need the prior-learning information for two colleagues.”
Inspect the four sources
T1 · The employer’s request
Six colleagues want to train together, on-site. Four have a recorded introductory course; the other two have not supplied their prior-learning information. The employer prefers a refresher if it is suitable.
T2 · Invented course sheet · v1.0
Foundation: one day, no introductory-course prerequisite, on-site delivery listed. Refresher: half a day, prior introductory course required, on-site delivery listed. Centre refresher: half a day, prior introductory course required, centre only. These are fictional courses, not real qualifications.
T3 · Invented booking rules · v1.0
Unavailable in this situation. No approved group-size or venue rules have been supplied. Do not substitute rules from the usual example.
T4 · The agreed selection rule
Compare the stated goal, each person’s supplied prior learning, delivery format and group size. Keep an unknown as an unanswered question. Do not invent a date or resolve a conflict by guessing. Return options to the provider, not a booking.
This prewritten comparison brings together four invented sources and the stated selection rule. The browser displays the chosen scenario; it does not calculate course eligibility. No AI model, account connection, learner record or live availability is involved.
Changed: T3 booking rules are unavailable. The output no longer claims that six people fit the on-site group rule.
Training · Sources disagree
Fictional training example
One route held for a source conflictDo not offer the refresher as on-site.
The course sheet and booking rules disagree about Refresher delivery. The Foundation route still fits the stated group rules; the shorter on-site option must wait.
FoundationStill available for review
One-day Foundation for six
Both sources still list on-site Foundation groups of four to eight. The provider must confirm whether it meets this team’s learning needs.
T1 T2 T3
RefresherHeld
Resolve on-site versus centre-only delivery
T2 says on-site. T3 says centre only. Do not silently choose one. Two prior-learning records also remain unconfirmed.
T1 T2 T3
Centre refresherNot shortlisted
Does not meet the on-site request
A centre-only alternative is not an equivalent substitution for the employer’s stated preference.
T1 T2
Who decides?
The provider confirms course suitability, prior-learning evidence, venue and dates. The employer then chooses. This is not a course recommendation or booking for a real learner.
The next question
“Your course sheet lists an on-site Refresher, but the booking rules say centre only. Which approved rule should be used? The Foundation option remains available for your suitability review.”
Inspect the four sources
T1 · The employer’s request
Six colleagues want to train together, on-site. Four have a recorded introductory course; the other two have not supplied their prior-learning information. The employer prefers a refresher if it is suitable.
T2 · Invented course sheet · v1.0
Foundation: one day, no introductory-course prerequisite, on-site delivery listed. Refresher: half a day, prior introductory course required, on-site delivery listed. Centre refresher: half a day, prior introductory course required, centre only. These are fictional courses, not real qualifications.
T3 · Invented booking rules · v1.0
Foundation: on-site groups of four to eight. Refresher: centre only. Provider confirmation of suitability, evidence, venue and dates remains necessary. This contradicts the on-site Refresher in T2.
T4 · The agreed selection rule
Compare the stated goal, each person’s supplied prior learning, delivery format and group size. Keep an unknown as an unanswered question. Do not invent a date or resolve a conflict by guessing. Return options to the provider, not a booking.
This prewritten comparison brings together four invented sources and the stated selection rule. The browser displays the chosen scenario; it does not calculate course eligibility. No AI model, account connection, learner record or live availability is involved.
Changed: T3 now lists the Refresher as centre only. Only the affected route is held; the Foundation option is not discarded.
Training · Essential sources unavailable
Fictional training example
No shortlist producedNo course suggestion without an approved catalogue.
The employer’s request is available, but the course sheet and booking rules are not. The useful next step is to establish those sources, not invent a route.
Next stepAsk the provider
Supply the approved course and booking information
Keep the six-person, on-site request. Ask for the current course rules and the two missing prior-learning records.
T1 T2 T3
Who decides?
The provider confirms course suitability, prior-learning evidence, venue and dates. The employer then chooses. This is not a course recommendation or booking for a real learner.
The next question
“Which approved course catalogue and booking rules should we use for this six-person on-site request?”
Inspect the four sources
This prewritten comparison brings together four invented sources and the stated selection rule. The browser displays the chosen scenario; it does not calculate course eligibility. No AI model, account connection, learner record or live availability is involved.
Changed: T2 and T3 are unavailable. No course title, prerequisite, duration or availability is inferred.
Customer follow-up · Usual information
Fictional customer-follow-up example
Prepared for owner reviewOne follow-up candidate. Two checks. Two exclusions.
A draft and a reasoned shortlist are ready for review. Your team can see who matches the task, who must wait and why someone was left out.
Record ACandidate
Review an Everyday Blend follow-up
Three orders, last order 32 days ago; product available; permission record supplied for review. Final eligibility is the owner’s decision.
S1 S2 S3 S4
Records D + EHeld
Resolve permission evidence and product availability
D has no permission evidence. E’s previous product is unavailable. Neither is added to the proposed audience.
S2 S3 S4
Records B + CExcluded
Not a returning-customer match; opted out
B has only one order. C has opted out and remains excluded. An active status must not override an opt-out.
S1 S2 S4
Who decides?
The owner separately approves eligibility, the proposed audience and the draft before any send. Active status alone is not permission to email. No profiles are changed and no message is sent.
Draft for A · separate review required
“Your previous order included Everyday Blend. You can view the current product information when you are ready.” This draft makes no health claim and does not assume the product has run out.
Inspect the four sources
S1 · Invented purchase history · fixed snapshot
Record A: three orders, last order 32 days ago, Everyday Blend. B: one order, 40 days ago, Everyday Blend. C: two orders, 36 days ago, Everyday Blend. D: two orders, 45 days ago, Everyday Blend. E: three orders, 31 days ago, Travel Blend. These are invented records, not customers.
S2 · Invented email information
A: permission record supplied for review; active platform status. B: permission record supplied. C: opted out. D: active platform status, but permission evidence missing. E: permission record supplied. A positive platform status alone does not establish permission.
S3 · Invented current product sheet
Everyday Blend is available. Travel Blend is unavailable. The sheet provides product names and availability only. It contains no health claims and does not establish how quickly someone uses a product.
S4 · The approved fictional task
Prepare a follow-up plan for returning customers with at least two orders, whose last order was 30–60 days ago, for an available product. Exclude opt-outs and non-matching order histories. Hold missing or conflicting evidence and unavailable products. Prepare a draft for separate owner review. Do not change profiles or send anything.
This prewritten review plan brings together invented purchase history, email information, product availability and one agreed task. It is not a legal permission decision, recovery operation or automated send. The browser displays the chosen scenario; it is not a simulation of the wellness case.
Usual example: one candidate for review, two held records and two exclusions.
Customer follow-up · One source missing
Fictional customer-follow-up example
Product source neededNo follow-up candidate until product information is checked.
The purchase and email records are unchanged. Product availability is missing, so do not present the earlier candidate as ready for audience review.
Records A + D + EHeld
Check availability; D also needs permission evidence
No approved availability sheet is supplied. Do not reuse the usual example’s product status.
S1 S2 S3
Records B + CExcluded
The exclusions still apply
B does not match the repeat-order rule. C has opted out. Missing stock information does not change either exclusion.
S1 S2 S4
Who decides?
The owner separately approves eligibility, the proposed audience and the draft before any send. Active status alone is not permission to email. No profiles are changed and no message is sent.
The next check
Obtain the current approved product sheet, then rerun the shortlist. No product draft is presented as ready for use.
Inspect the four sources
S1 · Invented purchase history · fixed snapshot
Record A: three orders, last order 32 days ago, Everyday Blend. B: one order, 40 days ago, Everyday Blend. C: two orders, 36 days ago, Everyday Blend. D: two orders, 45 days ago, Everyday Blend. E: three orders, 31 days ago, Travel Blend. These are invented records, not customers.
S2 · Invented email information
A: permission record supplied for review; active platform status. B: permission record supplied. C: opted out. D: active platform status, but permission evidence missing. E: permission record supplied. A positive platform status alone does not establish permission.
S3 · Invented current product sheet
Unavailable. Product names remain in order history, but no current approved availability information is supplied.
S4 · The approved fictional task
Prepare a follow-up plan for returning customers with at least two orders, whose last order was 30–60 days ago, for an available product. Exclude opt-outs and non-matching order histories. Hold missing or conflicting evidence and unavailable products. Prepare a draft for separate owner review. Do not change profiles or send anything.
This prewritten review plan brings together invented purchase history, email information, product availability and one agreed task. It is not a legal permission decision, recovery operation or automated send. The browser displays the chosen scenario; it is not a simulation of the wellness case.
Changed: S3 product availability is missing. A moves from candidate to held; the opt-out and repeat-order exclusions remain.
Customer follow-up · Sources disagree
Fictional customer-follow-up example
Permission conflict visibleThe opt-out takes priority. No follow-up candidate.
A now has a positive subscription record in one source and an opt-out in another. Keep A excluded; do not resolve the disagreement in favour of sending.
Record AExcluded
Do not use the positive record to override an opt-out
Clarify the recorded history without changing subscription status. The supplied opt-out blocks this proposed follow-up.
S2 S4
Records D + EHeld
Permission evidence and product availability unresolved
D still lacks permission evidence. E’s product remains unavailable.
S2 S3
Records B + CExcluded
Original exclusions remain
B has only one order; C has opted out.
S1 S2
Who decides?
The owner separately approves eligibility, the proposed audience and the draft before any send. Active status alone is not permission to email. No profiles are changed and no message is sent.
The next check
Keep the opt-out in force. Ask the authorised owner to resolve the source history; this example does not unsuppress a profile or create a send-ready audience.
Inspect the four sources
S1 · Invented purchase history · fixed snapshot
Record A: three orders, last order 32 days ago, Everyday Blend. B: one order, 40 days ago, Everyday Blend. C: two orders, 36 days ago, Everyday Blend. D: two orders, 45 days ago, Everyday Blend. E: three orders, 31 days ago, Travel Blend. These are invented records, not customers.
S2 · Invented email information
A: one source says subscribed and active, another records an opt-out; the history is unresolved. B: permission record supplied. C: opted out. D: active status with no permission evidence. E: permission record supplied. The positive record for A does not override the opt-out.
S3 · Invented current product sheet
Everyday Blend is available. Travel Blend is unavailable. The sheet provides product names and availability only. It contains no health claims and does not establish how quickly someone uses a product.
S4 · The approved fictional task
Prepare a follow-up plan for returning customers with at least two orders, whose last order was 30–60 days ago, for an available product. Exclude opt-outs and non-matching order histories. Hold missing or conflicting evidence and unavailable products. Prepare a draft for separate owner review. Do not change profiles or send anything.
This prewritten review plan brings together invented purchase history, email information, product availability and one agreed task. It is not a legal permission decision, recovery operation or automated send. The browser displays the chosen scenario; it is not a simulation of the wellness case.
Changed: S2 contains conflicting records for A, including an opt-out. A is excluded, not silently treated as eligible.
Customer follow-up · Essential sources unavailable
Fictional customer-follow-up example
No shortlist producedNo shortlist without purchase history.
The task and product sheet remain available, but the returning-customer rule cannot be checked. Do not invent an audience from email status alone.
Next stepSource needed
Supply the approved purchase-history snapshot
There is no basis to apply order-count or last-order rules to A, B, D or E.
S1 S4
Record CExcluded
Keep the recorded opt-out excluded
An opt-out remains a reason not to include a record, even when purchase history is unavailable.
S2 S4
Who decides?
The owner separately approves eligibility, the proposed audience and the draft before any send. Active status alone is not permission to email. No profiles are changed and no message is sent.
The next check
Agree the minimum purchase information needed for the task and how it will be accessed. Do not request customer records in an initial WhatsApp or email exchange.
Inspect the four sources
This prewritten review plan brings together invented purchase history, email information, product availability and one agreed task. It is not a legal permission decision, recovery operation or automated send. The browser displays the chosen scenario; it is not a simulation of the wellness case.
Changed: S1 purchase history is unavailable. No purchase-based selection or product-specific draft is produced.
Talk to David
What would you like
to make easier?
A short description is enough. I’ll assess whether there may be a useful next step.
First exchange free. No call required.
Paid work agreed separately. I won’t chase a reply.
Please leave out passwords, customer records, learner data and account access.
A brief to share with a colleague