# Reference Review and Facilitation Notes: No Single Answer Andrew David W.Y. · T02 material 04 Use after independent records, role exchange and supplementary evidence. These are checkable reasoning examples, not a compulsory ranking or allocation percentage. ## 1. Check facts before value priorities | Matter | Established | Not directly established | | --- | --- | --- | | Customer discussion F02 | Two discussions, confirmed requirements, willingness to continue | New signed order or revenue, or sole responsibility for all delivery results | | Acceptance F03 | Initially 36 passed; after four adjustments, all 40 passed | No problem throughout, or one party caused all adjustments | | Causes B01 | Two later specification changes and two assembly deviations | Responsible party, causal link to alternatives, or automatic fault from changed specifications | | Supply F04/B02 | Alternatives and expedited transport, procedural approval, freight settled | Equivalent performance, release from defect liability, who advanced funds, uncompensated risks or absence of all risk | | Hours F05 | Six adjustment hours and 12 checklist hours | Complete comparable inputs/difficulty or one contribution being twice another | | Checklist F06/B03 | Document, three uses in the batch, limited positive feedback | Efficiency magnitude, causation, long-term returns or confirmed later adoption | Forty completed boxes support shared participation, not separate new outputs of 40 for each party. Relative contributions need explanation of actions, cooperation and alternatives. ## 2. Possible first-round statements Role cards do not force learners to defend their roles; any viewpoint may value another role. ### Business development “I would discuss how clarified requirements and delivery connected. F02 establishes discussions and requirements; F03 establishes completion. We cannot quantify prevented problems or turn continued discussion into revenue. Delivery, supply and improvement support need separate examination.” This separates requirements, opportunity and results. Prioritizing customer willingness is also possible if described only as an opportunity signal. ### Delivery operations “I would discuss acceptance coordination and exceptions because completing this batch is the current task. F03/F05 show results and partial effort. Causes remain unclear, so four adjustments do not assign blame, and six hours do not cover all work. Alternative coordination also supported delivery.” Prioritizing fulfilment may be reasonable; attributing the whole result to delivery lacks evidence. ### Supply coordination “F04 records alternatives and transport after delay. I would discuss their role in this batch. Approval, expenses and risk-sharing are incomplete, so I cannot claim the supplier carried all risk or that its resource was the only solution.” Observed coordination differs from proof that it necessarily prevented breach. ### Process improvement “F06 shows a checklist created and trialled. I would discuss the method retained. The 12 hours in F05 show effort, not effect. More use records and feedback are needed. Its quality may also depend on frontline issue reports.” That last collaboration link needs checking; it is not a recorded contribution by a particular person without evidence. ## 3. What changes with further evidence? ### B01: separate blanket blame Original: “All four adjustments came from alternatives; the supplier bears all responsibility.” B01 distinguishes two categories, so blanket attribution is unsupported and must be corrected. Responsibility for the assembly deviations and any connection to alternatives remain open. Later specification changes do not automatically establish customer fault or business-development failure. Assessing remedial effort does not establish defect responsibility; recognizing remedy does not close the original duty review. ### B02: separate expense, risk and quality Original: “The supplier has not been reimbursed for urgent freight and therefore bore all losses.” Freight is settled and cannot remain an uncompensated expense. Who advanced it and other uncompensated exposure remain insufficiently documented. Procedural approval does not automatically prove equivalence or release liability. An assessment valuing recorded coordination may remain, but update its reasons rather than citing the corrected expense status. ### B03: stronger use evidence, limited effect evidence Original: “There is one use record, so I confirm only document creation and initial trial.” Update to three batch uses and limited feedback about locating missing components. Without comparable efficiency data, do not invent a percentage gain or long-term return. Later adoption belongs in follow-up; this assessment confirms the batch's document, use and feedback. ## 4. Two reasoned priorities **A: first discuss this batch's fulfilment.** Focus on exceptions, alternatives and requirements coordination while retaining observed checklist contributions rather than treating them as zero. **B: discuss the method separately.** F01 also includes reusable practice, so identify creation, three uses and feedback rather than letting delivery dominate. Long-term effects remain unverified and cannot outweigh all present work through hypothetical future value. Both may fit F01 with different reasons. Majority voting need not declare one wrong. A choice excluding an explicit F01 objective first needs scope correction; it is not merely a difference in values. ## 5. Match disagreements to responses | Type | Question | Suitable response | Unsuitable response | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Facts | What happened; are records complete? | Original records, cross-checks and pending status | Rank, volume of speech or votes deciding facts | | Definitions | Same object, period and meaning? | Restate F01 and align input/result/risk terms | One side counts this batch while another pre-counts future income | | Stage priority | What matters more under shared facts? | Explain objectives and evidence; retain reasoned difference | Select standards afterwards to win | | Authority | Who may decide or change what? | Check agreements and procedure; recommend within authority | Convert a six-dimension assessment directly into equity or pay | Correct this round's factual errors. Propose future rules separately with scope, effective date and confirmation, without retrospectively changing agreements through the exercise. ## 6. Example conclusion record ### Shared facts F03 confirms 40 finally accepted. B01 gives two categories but incomplete responsibility. F04/B02 confirm coordination, procedure and freight settlement. F06/B03 confirm the document, three uses and limited feedback. F02 contains no new signed order. ### Conditional assessments Groups may prioritize differently with fact IDs, F01 objectives and gaps. Insufficient evidence to compare risk burdens is a valid conclusion. Unknown is neither automatically zero nor automatically highest. ### Review tasks These are exercise proposals. Real use requires consent and checks of duties and authority. | Gap | Suggested records | Suggested provider | Suggested reviewer | Timing and reopening trigger | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Assembly responsibility | Defective-item, operation and acceptance checks | Delivery and relevant operators | Responsible quality reviewer | Before the next exercise round; reopen for new cause evidence | | Incomplete risk-bearing | Agreements, advances and settlement | Supply coordination and expense-record owners | Authorized contract/finance reviewers | Before the next exercise round; reopen for new agreement or exposure record | | Checklist effects and reuse | Comparable tasks, issue-location records and later feedback | Users and improvement team | Confirmed business reviewer | Separate future-batch window; assess long-term effects after comparable records exist | Future tracking does not automatically extend this batch's assessment window. Later evidence may test a long-term expectation; reopening a formal batch conclusion still follows the applicable procedure. ## 7. Assess learning without allocation percentages | Item | Achieved | Further practice needed | | --- | --- | --- | | Traceable evidence | IDs and accurate limits | Importance asserted without support | | Dimensions distinct | Roles, input, effects, time, duties and risk separated | Title, hours or wishes replace assessment | | No duplicate shared result | Explain support relationships | Count 40 independently for everyone | | Perspective-taking | Identify supported work by another role | Merely argue each new role ranks first | | Revision | Keep wording and explain change or retention | Ignore facts or force change | | Progress on disagreement | Classify and propose evidence/review actions | Blame attitude or force agreement | | Authority boundaries | Recommendations; real rights use proper procedure | Announce equity or contract changes after filling the table | No total score or claim of validated ability testing. Give item-level achieved/partial/needs-practice feedback with the relevant wording. ## 8. Six facilitator questions 1. Which card supports that statement, and how far? 2. Is it input or an observed effect? 3. Did the facts change when the role changed? 4. Does this need evidence, aligned definitions, priority discussion or authority checks? 5. Which sentence would new evidence change, and why do others remain? 6. Who supplies what next, who reviews and when? Evaluate the exercise through participant records and later trials. Lively discussion alone does not show that the method worked.