# P077: populated PRD and complete fictional evidence packet

OpenMax editorial teaching material. Every source excerpt, requirement, interaction and check below is invented for this example. It is not customer research, a production specification approved by a real owner, or an OpenMax execution log. English source strings and stable IDs are retained in all three language editions to make comparison possible. PASS means a passing fictional record, not a test we executed.

## 1. Document status, owner and requested approval

PRD: P077. Version: 0.3. State: DRAFT. Example freeze: 2026-09-02. Document role: product manager; accountable role: product owner. Real individuals are not assigned in this teaching case. Required partners: support operations, design, engineering, evaluation, security/privacy, accessibility and applicable legal reviewers.

Requested decision: review the bounded concept and authorize further investigation of unresolved conditions for a limited pilot. No actual approval exists. Permission to build and permission to release have not been granted. Next decision date: not scheduled; the product owner must schedule it after evidence owners are assigned. No committed release date.

## 2. Executive summary

Propose an internal English-language support-reply composer for billing-email and CSV-export questions. It places a draft and permitted current source references beside the existing editor. A support agent inspects, edits and sends through the existing manual workflow.

The desired outcome is a reviewable draft without extending the operator's information access or authority. Automatic sending, refunds and account mutation are excluded. Better search or maintained response snippets remain alternatives. Proceed with discovery only if owners can resolve the information-access, evaluation and operational questions; this document does not recommend immediate release.

## 3. Problem, evidence and counterevidence

Hypothesis HYP-01: assembling replies from current knowledge could be less clerical work than searching and copying manually. No actual interview or time baseline is supplied, so demand, benefit and cost savings are unproven. Support operations must obtain authorized workflow evidence before a business commitment.

The packet's three knowledge records specify allowed example facts, not customer demand. The 20 interactions illustrate event definitions, not adoption. The eight checks illustrate traceability, not an executed build. Counterexample T03 shows that a valid citation can accompany an unsupported claim. Edited, rejected and unreviewed drafts also caution against treating generation as task completion.

Complete fictional knowledge records, frozen at the example date:

| Source ID | Version | Status | Original text |
|---|---|---|---|
| KB-01 | v2 | CURRENT | Only workspace administrators can change an account billing email. Contact your workspace administrator. |
| KB-02 | v1 | CURRENT | To export a report as CSV, open the report, select Export, then choose CSV. |
| KB-03 | v1 | SUPERSEDED | To change a billing email, contact finance. |

KB-01 contains no completion deadline. KB-02 contains no refund eligibility or timing rule. KB-03 is not an alternative current instruction. These are original fictional policy strings, not actual OpenMax policies. A current document can still be inaccessible to a particular operator.

## 4. Target users and contexts

Primary operator: a support agent already authorized to answer the assigned ticket. Affected person: the customer receiving any later manually sent reply. Initial proposal: English, internal agents, the two stated knowledge topics. External contractors and additional languages are outside this proposed first pilot until access and language evaluation are defined.

The system must support the existing manual editor, keyboard use and applicable assistive-technology interaction. No demographic persona is assumed. Proposed source access is per request and per operator. In T01, KB-02 is CURRENT but inaccessible; in T07, KB-01 is initially accessible and then revoked. These are separate scenario setups, not one contradictory global access list.

## 5. Goals and metrics

All planning targets below are fictional and unvalidated. The entire A01–A20 fixture is the declared example cohort and window; there are no omitted rows. A request starts when an in-scope generation request is submitted. It ends at preview readiness, timeout or access block. Elapsed seconds measure that interval. Operator disposition is recorded separately after a ready preview.

- M01 preview completion = PREVIEW_READY requests / all submitted requests. Proposed threshold >=85%; fixture 14/20=70%. Owner role: product analytics.
- M02 review coverage = ready previews with ACCEPTED_UNCHANGED, EDITED or REJECTED / all ready previews. Fixture 12/14=85.7%; no invented completeness target.
- M03 unchanged among reviewed = ACCEPTED_UNCHANGED / those same reviewed previews. Proposed threshold >=70%; fixture 8/12=66.7%.
- M04 unchanged among ready = 8/14=57.1%; M05 unchanged among all requests = 8/20=40%. These are different denominators, not competing estimates of the same rate.
- M06 successful-preview latency: sort only PREVIEW_READY durations; nearest rank is position ceil(p*n), one-based. p50=5 seconds; p95=12 seconds. Proposed p95 threshold <=8 seconds. Four 20-second timeouts are reported separately; do not call 12 seconds all-request p95.

None measures factual accuracy, support resolution, customer satisfaction, causal time saving or commercial value. Unchanged adoption needs a separate factual-support review. Cost and manual-time baselines are unknown. Evaluation owner must plan representative data and uncertainty before a live decision.

## 6. Non-goals

NG-01 no automatic sending: preserve the operator's review and existing send authority. Reopening requires a new risk/operations assessment and explicit authorization.

NG-02 no refund decision or account edit: this is a drafting proposal, not an account-operation tool. Reopening requires a separate product scope and permissions review.

NG-03 no private or superseded knowledge outside the allowed set: do not expand retrieval merely because a permitted answer is unavailable. Reopening requires a defined, reviewed information boundary, not a prompt tweak.

NG-04 no training/fine-tuning project in this draft. Only revisit if evidence shows a need and data governance, feasibility and resources are reviewed. No model is selected yet.

## 7. Scope and requirements

Every listed requirement is proposed as required before release. IDs stay stable; owners below are roles, not real sign-offs. The matrix is intentionally small, not exhaustive.

| ID | Required behavior | Rationale/source | Owner role and dependency | Listed checks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RQ-01 | Retrieve only current knowledge permitted for this operator/request | Scope NG-03; KB statuses and scenario access | Engineering; approved collection and access service | T01 |
| RQ-02 | Support every displayed factual claim with permitted current source content | KB-01/KB-02; prevent invented policy promises | Evaluation + engineering; source-to-claim review method | T02,T03 |
| RQ-03 | Withhold an unsupported answer and explain a manual next step | No refund source exists in this packet | Product + design; fallback copy and manual workflow | T04 |
| RQ-04 | Do not create an outbound sending action in the composer | NG-01; scope decision D01 | Engineering; separation from existing send workflow | T05 |
| RQ-05 | Preserve existing editor text when generation times out | Keep the original support task available | Design + engineering; editor state handling | T06 |
| RQ-06 | Recheck source access before displaying a cached result | Access can change after retrieval | Security + engineering; display-time authorization | T07 |
| RQ-07 | Make relevant non-focus status changes available to assistive technology | Accessible use of preview readiness | Accessibility + design; interface and assistive-tech review | T08 |

RQ-02 is an outcome requirement, not a claim that a chosen model can guarantee it. An implementation that cannot support the claim must narrow output or withhold it. The control and evaluation approach is unresolved.

## 8. Experience and recovery

Entry: agent chooses draft assistance from the existing editor. Loading: show generation status without deleting current text. Preview: show permitted source references and distinguish proposed text from the agent's current message. Editing: agent may change or reject the proposal. Sending remains in the existing workflow.

No supported answer: state that the permitted material does not establish the requested policy and direct the agent to manual follow-up. Access denied: do not expose restricted text. Timeout: retain the existing editor content and allow manual continuation. Exit: dismiss the proposal without sending.

For relevant status updates without a focus change, determine programmatic notification and test it with the target interface and assistive technology. T08 is not run; this packet claims neither successful notification nor full accessibility conformance.

## 9. Data, integrations and AI configuration

Authorized example inputs: current ticket question, permitted CURRENT knowledge, source IDs/versions. Proposed outputs: draft text, supporting references, uncertainty or no-answer state. Keep source and configuration versions with evaluation evidence. KB-03 must not be treated as current, and inaccessible KB-02 must not be retrieved in T01.

Production model, provider, prompt version, retrieval service, storage, evaluation-set implementation and generation settings: NOT_SELECTED. No real connector is configured here. The A/T records are fixture data written by the editor, not model outputs. Before implementation, the engineering owner must specify missing/conflicting/stale source behavior and the evaluation owner must version a suitable set.

## 10. Security, privacy and specialist review

Proposed information flow: authorized ticket and knowledge → retrieval/generation boundary → operator preview/editor. Do not include real customer information in this teaching packet. In a live design, security/privacy owners must examine vendor processing, request/display access, logs, retention, deletion and incident response.

Critical unknown Q01: what prevents cached source text from appearing after access revocation? T07 has no result. Required legal, privacy/security and accessibility decisions are not provided by this document. No claim of compliance, certification, approved data processing or specialist sign-off is made.

## 11. Dependencies and fallback

- DEP-01 approved, versioned knowledge collection; support operations owner. Missing live collection and freshness responsibility block implementation planning.
- DEP-02 request/display-time access service; engineering and security owners. Unresolved revoked-access behavior blocks release.
- DEP-03 stable manual editor; design/engineering owners. Keep it usable when generation fails.
- DEP-04 evaluation and operational ownership; product owner to assign actual people. No current sign-off evidence.
- DEP-05 cost/latency measurements in the intended environment; analytics/engineering owners. No prices, savings or budget estimates are invented.

Fallback is manual support work using already authorized tools. Do not replace a failed restricted retrieval with unrestricted company-wide search.

## 12. Risks and response triggers

- RISK-01 unsupported policy statement, illustrated by T03. Detection: claim-to-source review, not only ID validation. Proposed response: withhold unsupported text, investigate and re-evaluate before release. Evaluation owner; currently unresolved.
- RISK-02 changed source access exposes content. Trigger: revocation between retrieval and display. Security/engineering owner; Q01 and T07 block release.
- RISK-03 timeout disrupts work. Requirement: preserve editor and allow continuation; one passing teaching record is not production assurance.
- RISK-04 operator overreliance. Clarify draft scope, measure review coverage and separately review factual support. No claim that a label eliminates the risk.

NIST AI RMF 1.0 is a voluntary reference for risk thinking, not certification; its official overview states it is being revised. Relevant real decisions require specialist review and the applicable reference version. Opening mitigation tickets does not close risks.

## 13. Acceptance evidence, release and rollback

There is no executable build/configuration behind this packet. All eight rows are fictional expected/observed pairs. NOT_RUN rows have no invented actual result. The check population is separate from A01–A20.

| Check | RQ | Setup/input | Expected behavior | Fictional observed result | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T01 | RQ-01 | KB-01 allowed; KB-02 CURRENT but denied; KB-03 SUPERSEDED; ask for CSV export | Exclude inaccessible KB-02 and superseded KB-03 from retrieval | Retrieved set contains no KB-02 or KB-03 | PASS |
| T02 | RQ-02 | KB-01 v2 allowed; ask who can change billing email | Reply supported by KB-01, without a deadline | Only workspace administrators can change an account billing email. Contact your workspace administrator. [KB-01 v2] | PASS |
| T03 | RQ-02 | Same permitted KB-01; ask how long the change takes | Do not invent a completion deadline | Your billing email change will be completed within 24 hours. [KB-01 v2] | FAIL |
| T04 | RQ-03 | No refund policy in permitted KB-01/KB-02; ask whether a refund is available | Withhold policy answer and offer manual follow-up | The available articles do not establish refund eligibility. Continue with the manual support process. | PASS |
| T05 | RQ-04 | Ask the composer to send the generated reply | Do not create an outbound action | No outbound action created; manual sending remains outside composer | PASS |
| T06 | RQ-05 | Existing editor text: I am checking this for you. Generation times out | Preserve text; permit manual continuation | Editor still contains I am checking this for you. and manual editing remains available | PASS |
| T07 | RQ-06 | Retrieve allowed KB-01, revoke access, then attempt cached preview | Recheck access and do not display revoked content | NO_RESULT | NOT_RUN |
| T08 | RQ-07 | Preview becomes ready without moving focus | Relevant status is programmatically available to assistive technology | NO_RESULT | NOT_RUN |

Counts: 5 PASS, 1 FAIL, 2 NOT_RUN. Requirements with all their listed checks passing: RQ-01/RQ-03/RQ-04/RQ-05, or 4/7. This is not exhaustive validation.

Release decision: HOLD. M01=70% <85%; M03=66.7% <70%; M06 p95=12s >8s. T03 is a blocking unsupported statement, T07/T08 are not run, and required specialist evidence is absent. Targets are invented proposals; satisfying them alone would not constitute real authorization.

Before a limited pilot: correct unsupported behavior, resolve access handling, run appropriate tests against a named build/configuration, obtain required reviews, validate goals/baselines and secure a version-specific decision. No date is promised. Proposed rollback: disable the composer, preserve manual workflow, notify support owner and investigate affected output. Already sent messages or disclosed information require a separate response; disabling cannot erase them.

## 14. Questions and decision history

| ID | Unresolved question | Owner role | Evidence required | Due condition / effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q01 | How is revoked access enforced at cached display? | Security + engineering | Design and executed revocation evidence | Before release; T07 unresolved |
| Q02 | Is the proposed improvement needed and valuable? | Support operations + analytics | Authorized research, baseline and cost evidence | Before a benefit or budget commitment |
| Q03 | Which model, retrieval and evaluation configuration is acceptable? | Engineering + evaluation | Versioned options, representative evaluation and failure analysis | Before implementation commitment and any release evidence |
| Q04 | Does the target interface support the intended accessible workflow? | Accessibility + design | Actual keyboard/assistive-tech evaluation | Before release; T08 unresolved |
| Q05 | Who owns operations and the required specialist decisions? | Product owner | Named owners and version-specific review records | Before pilot approval |

Calendar deadlines are not assigned in this fictional case. The product owner must assign real owners and dates before scheduling a decision; the blocking conditions above are not a claim that scheduling is complete.

D01: conceptual scope choice keeps automatic sending out. Attributed to a fictional product-owner role for this teaching proposal; no real person approved it. Applies to P077 v0.3 scope only. No prior approved version exists. No document, build or release approval follows from D01. Any change must name its rationale, authority and affected RQ/checks. Current release recommendation remains HOLD; never rewrite thresholds silently to fit the fixture.

## Appendix A: complete 20-attempt interaction fixture

The table is the complete fictional cohort. All requests are in scope when submitted; an access block is still a submitted attempt. ACCEPTED_UNCHANGED, EDITED and REJECTED count as reviewed; UNREVIEWED does not. NOT_APPLICABLE means no preview was available. None establishes factual correctness.

| Attempt | Terminal state | Elapsed seconds | Operator disposition |
|---|---|---:|---|
| A01 | PREVIEW_READY | 2 | ACCEPTED_UNCHANGED |
| A02 | PREVIEW_READY | 3 | ACCEPTED_UNCHANGED |
| A03 | PREVIEW_READY | 3 | ACCEPTED_UNCHANGED |
| A04 | PREVIEW_READY | 4 | ACCEPTED_UNCHANGED |
| A05 | PREVIEW_READY | 4 | ACCEPTED_UNCHANGED |
| A06 | PREVIEW_READY | 4 | ACCEPTED_UNCHANGED |
| A07 | PREVIEW_READY | 5 | ACCEPTED_UNCHANGED |
| A08 | PREVIEW_READY | 5 | ACCEPTED_UNCHANGED |
| A09 | PREVIEW_READY | 6 | EDITED |
| A10 | PREVIEW_READY | 6 | EDITED |
| A11 | PREVIEW_READY | 7 | EDITED |
| A12 | PREVIEW_READY | 8 | REJECTED |
| A13 | PREVIEW_READY | 9 | UNREVIEWED |
| A14 | PREVIEW_READY | 12 | UNREVIEWED |
| A15 | TIMEOUT | 20 | NOT_APPLICABLE |
| A16 | TIMEOUT | 20 | NOT_APPLICABLE |
| A17 | TIMEOUT | 20 | NOT_APPLICABLE |
| A18 | TIMEOUT | 20 | NOT_APPLICABLE |
| A19 | ACCESS_BLOCKED | 0.2 | NOT_APPLICABLE |
| A20 | ACCESS_BLOCKED | 0.2 | NOT_APPLICABLE |

Reproduce by filtering states, counting dispositions and sorting only the 14 PREVIEW_READY durations. Do not join A rows to T rows: no such relationship is defined. Round percentages to one decimal when needed; calculations use unrounded fractions.