STR.2:5 - Archetypal Grounding
STR.2:5.1 - SensorCo: one price change, different consequences
All SensorCo facts are constructed teaching conditions. Generic AI-inspection prices have fallen over twelve months. The StrategyTeam is preparing a twelve-month choice for the affected segment. Existing device and service contracts are assumed to fund the required current service throughout that horizon.
The team inspects three uses of the old price expectation:
| Receiving use | Actual premise | Impact of the supplied change |
|---|---|---|
| Proposal to expand the generic-inspection offering | New customers can be served on economics resembling the earlier price level. | Reopen the expansion comparison using the lower-price conditions; the old margin premise no longer supports it as stated. |
| Current service commitment under existing contracts | The identified contracts fund the protected contribution during the horizon. | The new generic-price observation alone does not overturn that supplied funding basis. Preserve the commitment while retaining its actual conditions. |
| Proposal for an integrated service | Customers will pay for accountable inspection outcomes at a cost SensorCo can sustain. | The price decline motivates looking for another contribution but supplies no evidence for this demand or cost premise. Return those as unresolved. |
The result is not “choose integrated service”. It is a bounded correction: generic expansion needs a new comparison, current funded service is preserved and the service option needs its own evidence. The later four-day preparation can address the missing service-cost answer if its burden is justified.
STR.2:5.2 - A changed forecast source
Suppose a planning team has used a demand report both in a channel-expansion proposal and in a staffing discussion. A revised report narrows its population to existing customers. The headline estimate is unchanged.
A citation search finds the channel proposal; inspection of the staffing assumptions finds an uncited use of the old population claim. Both uses need comparison at their actual scope. A training note that merely lists the report does not. The source revision affects what the estimate can support, not necessarily the underlying demand.
If the staffing discussion cannot be recovered, the team can finish the channel result while declaring that limit. It cannot claim “no other affected decisions” from the accessible proposal alone.
STR.2:5.3 - The observations stay the same, but the filter changes
Consider a constructed strategic filter with four conditions: take changes this quarter that reduce customer rework, can be checked within two weeks and avoid irreversible migration for now. In this example, a reversible correction to error-handling information may satisfy the rule; a proposal requiring irreversible migration is excluded under that last condition. Neither disposition alone awards resources.
The responsible body later adopts a revised policy that permits irreversible migration, subject to specified transition protections. The rework observations and the two-week condition have not changed. The analyst can now reopen the migration proposal’s eligibility, but still needs its rework contribution, checkability and transition feasibility. Removing one exclusion does not establish those premises.
The useful return identifies the changed policy premise and the comparison it reopens. The earlier exclusion remains correct under the earlier rule. Current service commitments are not cancelled, and the proposal is not commissioned merely because the new filter permits its consideration. If the policy change were only suggested, the return would remain conditional on its adoption.