Review a second office as a separate scope change

The operational decision

Prevent a successful one-office information pilot from silently spreading incompatible facts across locations. A future workflow needs a separate decision from the current information-only pilot. Listing a possible next stage does not make the technical connection, agreements or operational safeguards exist.

Prepare the workflow

Create a separate location sheet, contact map and approval owner; test location identification before adding another office's public information.

Example wording for approval

“The current example covers one office. A second location needs its own approved public facts and routing review before those answers are added.”

Worked example

The first fictional office closes at five and uses a rear entrance; a second proposed office closes at seven and uses a front lobby. Reusing the original knowledge sheet with the new name would send some visitors to the wrong place or time. Create a distinct fact set and location-selection test. Ask the same directions question for both offices before expansion. The task is complete only when the system selects the right approved location without blending their details.

Handoff record

Record these task-specific fields: location identifier, fact owner, contact map, expansion decision.

Acceptance check

Ask a question that differs between the two offices. Expansion should remain blocked until the answer selects the correct approved location without guessing.

Related guides