THE CASE FILE · EXHIBIT H · FULL DOCUMENT

The incident

EXHIBIT HINCIDENT 21 JULY · POSTMORTEMOBSERVE

Ostermill Industrial Supply · Reminder agent · Incident postmortem

WHAT HAPPENED

A routine reminder for $410.00 was drafted, approved and sent to an account whose owner had died five days earlier. Received by the owner's daughter. Ostermill was notified by the account manager on 5 August, the day after R. Vaughn had already found it.

WHAT THE AGENT DID WRONG

Nothing. All four walls held. The draft was correct against every input available to it.

WHAT IT DID NOT SEE

A CRM note entered 17 July: "owner passed away, hold all contact, will advise." The note field was outside retrieval scope by design.

WHY NO INSTRUMENT FIRED

INSTRUMENTREADING THENWHY IT WAS BLIND
Task successPass, semantic and stateThe draft was faithful to its input and the letter arrived
Unintended actionNo crossingThe boundary was not crossed. The boundary did not cover this
Override frequencyNo overrideThe reviewer had no reason to override
Confidence0.94The agent was confident and, on its inputs, correct

HOW IT WAS FOUND

R. Vaughn, spot check, 4 August, by recognizing the account name. Fourteen days after the send. She found it the way she would have found it in 2015: she recognized the name, remembered a conversation, and went looking.

CLASSIFIED

Signal exists, not reachable by the system as scoped. Records change, owner outside this project. Never to be recorded as a model defect.

ACTIONS

  1. Note field added to retrieval scope, with the field treated as untrusted input under GR-05. Shipped 11 August.
  2. Random-sample review, five drafts a week, drawn before send, read by a person who did not queue them. Standing from 11 August.
  3. Account-state change detection referred to the records owner, joined to the open dispute-flag condition. No date.
  4. New graded case added to the eval set: recent account-state change present in an unread field. Set goes from twelve cases to thirteen.

DISPOSITION ⊕

The balance of $410.00 was written off in full on 5 August. No agent in the path, and none could have been: $410 is far above the small-balance floor, which is the whole of what the agent was ever allowed to post alone. R. Vaughn wrote it off by hand, with M. Ellery's approval on the entry. She telephoned the family the same day, before any written word. The written apology followed over M. Ellery's signature, as owner of affected-person outcomes, the line written into the design file before anything went wrong. All contact with the account is held until the family advises, which is what the note asked in the first place. Counsel was not engaged. The affected-person owner was, and this is the day that line existed for.

Margin, M. Ellery: the useful question in the room was not who missed it. It was what would have had to exist for anyone other than Ruth to catch it. We are relying on a person's memory of a customer, and that is a control we cannot hire for and did not budget.

Margin, R. Vaughn: I would have caught this in 2015 too. The difference is that in 2015 I would have caught it before it went out.

FILED AT · SOURCES

CALENDAR · INCIDENT REVIEW, 11 AUG  ·  EXHIBIT INDEX · H  ·  T6 · POSTMORTEM  ·  THE AGENT, REPLAYED

CF-062 Exhibit H as filed · Disposition is site-authored canon ⊕, adopted ahead of the book