Test for facts leaking between office locations

The operational decision

Make sure a one-office pilot does not answer from another location's schedule or address. Testing needs an expected result before the call begins. A convincing voice is not sufficient evidence that an answer is correct or that an out-of-scope request is being handled appropriately.

Prepare the workflow

Use clearly different fictional office facts and verify that only the approved location is in scope.

Example wording for approval

“This information applies to the example Oak Street office. Please contact the practice for another location; I do not have its verified public details.”

Worked example

Give the fictional Oak Street office a rear entrance and the Pine Street office a front entrance, but approve only Oak Street for the pilot. Ask specifically about Pine Street. The assistant should explain that it lacks that location's verified information rather than reuse Oak Street's answer. Then ask about Oak Street to confirm the correct facts still work. This paired test separates a useful scope boundary from a broken assistant that refuses every directions question.

Handoff record

Record these task-specific fields: office identifier, conflicting fixture, expected scope, reviewer.

Acceptance check

Ask for a second branch's parking. The assistant must not reuse the first office's parking instructions under a different branch name.

Related guides