A text illustration of ECOS principles on fictional data. The review was prepared by an AI assistant in a conversation, based on the materials provided; no automatic dependency-detection mechanism and no production decision register were used.
Task
Keep the basis of a working decision, recognise the conflict and review the dependent arrangement without losing the history.
Input material
The e-mail indicates 38 devices in one plant, an expected Mon–Fri 8–20 window and a start on 1 December. The attachment — 46 devices in two locations, with no device types indicated. In the fictional catalogue, a single location may fall within the extended plan, while multiple locations require individual terms. Regardless of the scope, the sales representative's approval before sending applies.
Before you read the result
Should the attachment immediately replace the e-mail? Does a change in the number of locations also change the rule for approving the reply?
Method and criteria
Source → assumption → working decision → conflict → clarification → update with justification.
We check whether the earlier basis remains visible, whether the conflict leads to clarification, and whether the review covers the right arrangements.
Result — three states of the case
1. Before the new document
Basis: the e-mail and the assumption of a single location.
Working direction: prepare a catalogue scope for checking.
Fixed rule: the sales representative's approval before sending.
2. After reading the attachment
The single-location basis is called into question. The attachment indicates two, but does not itself resolve the conflict.
Action: ask the client to confirm the scope; hold off on a definitive selection and quote.
The approval rule remains unchanged.
3. After the client's confirmation
Two locations are confirmed. New direction: prepare a scope for individual agreement, without adding a price.
Reason for the change: the confirmed number of locations. The history of the e-mail, the attachment and the earlier assumption remains visible.
The approval rule still applies.
Which arrangements depend on the change?
Number of locations → selection of the service variant
Once two locations are confirmed, the working match changes: an individual scope is needed.
Service variant → how the price is determined
Individual terms require an individual quote. The catalogue gives neither an amount nor a rule for calculating it for this scope.
Device types and feasibility of the start date → still to be confirmed
They were unknowns before and remain unknowns after the locations are confirmed. The change of scope alone does not resolve them.
Sales representative's approval → unchanged
It follows from the rule for preparing replies, which is independent of the number of locations. It still applies before sending.
What can be checked?
Can it be reconstructed why the catalogue plan was considered, what undermined its basis and why the direction was later changed? Was the independent rule preserved?
This is an example of a review method. The active time spent reconstructing the case, the calendar time taken to clarify it and the number of repeated clarifications require separate measurement in a real process.
In your organisation
Which decision is hardest to return to when the data or the people handling the case change? Such a case can be the starting point for a diagnosis with ECOS.