FairChange helps implementation teams decide whether a client request is a defect, included work, or extra scope by checking the request against evidence from the signed agreement and delivery records.
This kit lets a participant try three fictional requests and tell us whether FairChange's evidence trail is clear and useful. It is a usability check, not a customer-data collection form.
This is an eight-to-ten-minute usability session using fictional records. Decide how each request should be handled, cite the evidence you relied on, and note anything that felt unclear.
Scope-clause glossary: S1 = active-representative routing; S2 = dashboard revision allowance; S3 = administrator training deliverable; S4 = additional countries excluded; S5 = acceptance failures corrected without an extra fee.
A delivered routing workflow assigns qualifying US leads to an inactive representative.
Available evidence: S1 requires every qualifying lead to be assigned to an active representative. S5 says acceptance-criteria failures are corrected without an additional fee.
The client asks to move the conversion chart above the pipeline chart.
Available evidence: S2 includes two dashboard revision rounds, with one round still unused.
The client asks for UK and Canada routing and suggests dropping unstarted administrator training to stay within budget.
Available evidence: S4 excludes additional countries and requires consultant authorization and client acceptance. S3 records the unstarted training deliverable.
