Synthetic enquiry 004
No client data or live sources
Can support be coordinated while a provider response is outstanding?
Evidence to review
The example keeps source limits visible. Unknowns and conflicts stay open for human judgment.
- Known
- Navigator-confirmed: the provider enquiry was sent.
- Unknown
- Whether another provider can meet both requirements.
- Conflict
- Official and internal sources differ.
- Provider assertion
- “No capacity.” Not an eligibility decision.
- Expert question
- Which authority applies?
- Model hypothesis
- Navigator-only and rejected.
- S1: Synthetic official sourceReviewed authority. Scope: example. Freshness: illustrative current. Locator: S1 §2.
- S2: Synthetic internal procedureReviewed guidance. Scope: internal. Freshness: illustrative current. Locator: S2 §4. Conflict recorded.
The navigator stays in control.
Every change waits for a person. An edit creates a new proposal rather than overwriting the approved plan.
- ApproveAccept sourced evidence.
- EditP-02 supersedes P-01.
- RejectKeep the hypothesis rejected.
- EscalateAsk a human expert.
Later provider assertion: “No capacity.” It stays attributed, time-bounded, and separate from eligibility. Draft change P-03: a new proposal only. Approved revision 03 stays unchanged.
Model: find, structure, compare, draft. Sources and experts: authority within recorded scope. Navigator: decide, edit, reject, communicate. System: preserve sources, gaps, decisions, and waits.
No-change boundary: missing, stale, conflicting, unsupported, or unreviewed evidence leaves the approved plan unchanged and returns the question to a human.