# CV07 — Larch Components Replacement-Part Assessment (Fiction/Execution Legend)

**This document is an entirely invented teaching specimen.** Larch Components, every note, every dollar figure, every approval and every payment below are fictional constructs created solely to demonstrate how a Sonnet drafting invocation can simulate the paperwork of a paid assessment. No real client, real interview, real contract or real cash exists anywhere in this file. This single Sonnet call is simulating eight named role responsibilities for teaching purposes; it is not eight agents, not a deployed workflow, and not a substitute for human judgement, pricing authority, scope authority or finance authority, all of which remain with real humans in any genuine engagement.


*Execution provenance: Parts A–E derive from one authenticated workhorse-sonnet run. Codex owner review applied the disclosed wording corrections in EDITORIAL-CHANGES.json; OUTPUT.json retains the executed Sonnet draft unchanged. The separate v2 return below is scripted teaching material.*

## Part A — Costed Scope / Proposal Draft (A$30,000)

**Accepted question:** Should Larch test a local replacement-part offer for non-critical processing components, and which buyer conditions should the pilot require? [CV07#/records/BRIEF/question]

**Inclusions:** coding of eight supplied buyer/channel notes; comparison of three options (no launch, broad speed-led launch, bounded compatibility-led pilot); a conditional recommendation draft; an executive summary; a source/method appendix; one scripted reviewer correction cycle and final response v2.

**Exclusions:** market sizing, population-level demand, a statistically representative switching rate, safety certification, external factual validation, revenue forecasting, implementation, and any supplier fulfilment guarantee. [CV07#/records/BRIEF/excluded]

**Cost method:** fully loaded internal planning rates, not salaries or real cash savings. [CV07#/records/COST/ratesBasis] Role cost = Senior reviewer 18h × A$300 (A$5,400) + Analyst 42h × A$180 (A$7,560) + Operations 6h × A$90 (A$540) = **A$13,500**. Direct cost A$1,500. Base cost A$15,000. Contingency at 10% of (role cost + direct cost) = A$1,500. Total estimated cost = **A$16,500**. Fee = A$30,000, producing a planning surplus of A$13,500 (45%) — a planning margin only, not a collected contribution and not profit actually received; CV07's costing is deliberately separate from any other buyer-case illustration.

**Timeline:** ten business days after complete permitted inputs and reviewer availability. [CV07#/records/TERMS/timing]

**Milestone triggers:** M1 (A$10,000) on scripted brief/method acceptance; M2 (A$20,000) on scripted written client acceptance of the professionally reviewed report v2. Additional interviews, external research, or a new decision question require separate written scope and fee decision.

**Proposed responsibilities (roles, not agents):** Intake analyst drafts the brief/method pair; Commercial analyst — sales prepares this proposal and milestone terms; Evidence librarian holds the eight notes and rights register; Delivery analyst codes notes against the method; Deliverable writer drafts the report and executive summary; Quality checker prepares discrepancy flags; Marcus owns the scripted review return; Case coordinator tracks milestone/acceptance timing; Commercial analyst — finance tracks invoices and payments. Humans retain final judgement on scope, price, issues and finance.


**Rights and release boundary:** all eight interviews permit anonymous paraphrase for this case only; cross-case interview reuse is prohibited. The teaching fiction itself may be shared. A changed/revoked source reopens affected review. The rights register is scripted, not real consent. [CV07#/records/RIGHTS/purpose] Elaine retains scope/fee decisions, Marcus professional issue, Nadia delivery acceptance and Ruth finance actions in the fictional responsibility map. [CV07#/records/TERMS/signatories]

## Part B — Market-Assessment Expert Decision Report (conditional professional draft v1)

**Executive summary:** The eight notes do not establish a general speed-only switching proposition. Three expressions of willingness to trial are conditional on compatibility review, documentation, or low criticality, and one premium-price purchase was a single urgent exception, not a general pricing signal.

**Method:** purposive qualitative comparison coding each note for urgency, compatibility/approval, incumbent resistance, price evidence and explicit trial intent, keeping participant reports separate from inference; comparison of no launch, broad speed-led launch, and bounded compatibility-led pilot; no percentage-of-market or causal-switching inference permitted. [CV07#/records/METHOD/method]

**Coverage:** eight separate buying/channel perspectives recruited for this fiction across plant, workshop, repair, distribution and engineering perspectives (roles overlap within the eight notes), with no claimed representativeness or saturation. [CV07#/records/METHOD/coverage]

**Finding 1 — Compatibility approval conditions trial; incumbent delivery also matters.** A maintenance manager states compatibility sign-off, not speed, authorises any trial: "I would trial a local replacement if engineering signs off compatibility; speed alone will not authorise it." [CV07#/records/N01/text] A large-site procurement lead reports strong incumbent delivery performance: "Our approved supplier delivered nine of our last ten orders within the agreed window." [CV07#/records/N02/text] N01 makes trial conditional on engineering approval; N02 qualifies an assumption of universal delivery urgency. Together they support checking approval and incumbent performance before proposing a trial.

**Finding 2 — Criticality, not urgency alone, determines openness.** A workshop lead will trial substitutes only for low-risk fittings: "For low-risk fittings I can trial a documented substitute; safety-critical parts stay with the approved supplier." [CV07#/records/N03/text] By contrast, an operations manager with no recent stockout sees no present need: "We hold spares for our critical equipment and had no stockout in the last quarter." [CV07#/records/N07/text] Urgency experience varies by site and does not generalise into a uniform switching driver.

**Finding 3 — One premium purchase is not a pricing rule.** A repair buyer accepted a higher price exactly once, for one urgent job: "The price was 12 percent higher and I accepted it for that urgent job." [CV07#/records/N06/text] A distributor explicitly has no record connecting speed to switching: "Prospects ask about lead time, but I have no record showing faster delivery caused a switch." [CV07#/records/N04/text] A packaging-factory buyer has committed nothing: "I have not committed an order or accepted a price premium." [CV07#/records/N08/text] These three notes jointly block any generalisation from the single 12% case.

**Limits:** notes rather than transcripts, no verified purchase records, no supplier capability/cost validation, no external market sources; eight notes are complete for this scripted method but not sufficient to establish market demand. An engineering approver also stresses validation cannot be bypassed by outage urgency: "No local-source exception bypasses validation." [CV07#/records/N05/text]

**Comparison of alternatives:** (1) No launch avoids pilot qualification effort but forgoes the conditional trial interest expressed in N01 and N03; (2) broad speed-led launch is directly contradicted by N01, N02, N04 and risks incumbent/approval resistance; (3) bounded compatibility-led pilot, limited to non-critical parts with engineering sign-off (N01, N03, N05, N08), addresses conditional interest without treating resistant sites as demand; no launch also remains reasonable where approval effort or supplier capability makes a trial unattractive.

**Conditional recommendation draft:** pilot one non-critical, documented-equivalence component with willing sites (N01, N03, N08), require engineering review before any order, and exclude safety-critical lines; do not rely on price-premium acceptance or a general switching claim as pilot justification.

## Part C — Scripted Human Review Return and Revised v2 Excerpt

**Status:** SCRIPTED_RETURN_AND_REVISION_NOT_ACTUAL_PROFESSIONAL_APPROVAL. Reviewer "Marcus Cole" (fictional) returned draft CV07-report-v1 with this instruction: "Reject the supplied most-customers switching claim. Remove any implication that the single premium purchase establishes willingness to pay generally. Specify a conditional pilot, buyer approval and unverified supplier capability." This return is scripted, not a record of a real reviewer's judgement.

**Before (scripted returned wording, introduced for teaching; not an excerpt from Part B):** "Buyers show general appetite for faster suppliers and the 12% premium case suggests price tolerance for speed."

**After (v2 excerpt, authored from the scripted return):** "No note supports a general switching claim; the supplied claim that most customers will switch for faster delivery is rejected as unsupported. [CV07#/records/BRIEF/suppliedClaim] The single 12% premium purchase (N06) reflects one urgent transaction, not general price tolerance, and any pilot requires engineering compatibility approval and a separate check of supplier capability, which these notes do not verify." This v2 excerpt is a scripted authorial revision only; it does not demonstrate an actual client or professional acceptance event.

## Part D — Finance Exception Packet

- **Version/report:** CV07-report-v2, scripted professional issue date 2026-09-17, scripted client acceptance date 2026-09-18 (M2 scope: written acceptance of included assessment only, no pilot-launch authority). [CV07#/records/ACCEPTANCE/scope] M1 scripted acceptance date 2026-09-04.
- **Invoices:** CV07-INV-01 (M1, A$10,000) — paid in full. CV07-INV-02 (M2, A$20,000), scripted authorised and issued 2026-09-21, due date **2026-10-05**. [CV07#/records/INVOICE/scriptedDueDate]
- **Payments:** CV07-PAY-02 of A$10,000 received 2026-09-28 against CV07-INV-02, [CV07#/records/PAYMENT/invoice] leaving an **M2 balance of A$10,000**. As of **2026-10-02**, the invoice is partly paid and **not yet due**; it must not be called overdue and must not be closed on partial payment (plannedFailure: PARTIAL_PAYMENT_MUST_NOT_CLOSE_INVOICE).
- **Totals:** total invoiced A$30,000; total payments received A$20,000; total outstanding balance A$10,000.
- **Next action and authority:** Ruth Chen (fictional) to verify payment allocation and retain the open A$10,000 balance until allocated payment or another explicitly authorised adjustment resolves it; passing the due date changes ageing, not the balance; escalate to the account partner only if a commercial query arises. No dispute is recorded in this fixture, which is not proof that no actual dispute exists.

## Part E — No-Build / Current-Manual Comparison

This entire packet was produced in one Sonnet drafting pass with no tools, no live case-folder write, no live finance-system touch, and no deployed multi-agent workflow — any references to Word, case-folder or finance locations above are proposed scenario placements only, with no verified integration. A real equivalent would require: an accountable analyst documenting permitted interviews under the agreed method; a qualified reviewer actually reading and approving v1/v2; genuine signed terms and a genuine invoicing/collections system; and measurable effort tracking, inter-rater quality checks on coding, and bank-confirmed cash receipt before any actual collection could be reported. Compare the repaired manual method in existing Word, case folders and finance reports with the proposed drafting step at equal reviewer-accepted quality; measure full preparation, review, correction and operating effort, accepted throughput, acceptance-to-invoice delay and allocated receipts. These are proposed scenario touchpoints; integration remains unverified.