A.15.9:5 - Worked cases

A.15.9:5.1 - Reuse closes a payroll scheduling question

An administrator asks whether moving one contractor submission from Thursday to Friday will miss the current pay run. Before requesting new payroll Work, the administrator finds a dated payroll result covering the same payroll entity, cutoff, and calendar edition. The source is current for employee payments but explicitly excludes the contractor batch.

The administrator returns: “Use the current result for employee items. Keep the contractor submission date unchanged; the checked source does not cover that batch.” The present scheduling answer is complete, while permission to move the contractor item remains unestablished. If moving it later becomes valuable enough to warrant an obtainable contractor-cutoff result, step 3 selects that acquisition.

A.15.9:5.2 - A heat-pump choice needs one acoustic result

An engineering team is choosing a compressor operating region. It already has a general product noise rating, but the decision concerns tonal noise in a named room, mounting configuration, and speed range. The general rating is useful source material but is not qualified for that use.

Suppose the existing qualified operating region remains available, but the proposed region could meet an important capacity need before the controller choice. The acoustics team can answer the configuration-specific question in that window using an available test setup; the expected gain over keeping the existing region warrants the preparation, test, interpretation, and delay together. This case premise selects acquisition; a general rating or merely cheap test would not do so.

The team requests: “For the controller decision, return the observed tonal-noise and vibration limits for this compressor, mounting, room, and speed range, with the tested conditions and unsupported region. A supported limit, objection, or missing-test blocker is useful; the acoustics result does not choose the controller.” The acoustics practice keeps its Method and evidence rules; the engineering team keeps the architecture decision. If the question later becomes which complete internal, provider, reuse, or redesign way can make the same accepted control result available, leave this one-contribution question and use C.38.

A.15.9:5.3 - A fluent tool output is not specialist approval

A case worker receives a generated summary labelled verified legal review. The summary cites no governing edition, jurisdiction, case configuration, performing Agent, Method, or authority. It may help locate sources, but it cannot support the current eligibility decision.

The case worker returns: “The generated summary can help locate sources, but is not qualified for this eligibility decision in this jurisdiction. That decision remains blocked on the missing legal basis.” A dated legal-result request becomes a continuation only if the obtainable contribution warrants acquisition for this case. If later evidence supports the tool or another Agent as the actual performer of bounded legal-research Work, those facts still do not create legal authority or make the receiving administrative decision.