# Fictional source packet: Cedar Valley service-request pilot

**Entirely invented educational material.** Every organization, vendor, person, term, date, amount, and record below is fictional. This is a small document-review exercise, not an executable agreement, official form, procurement specification, or complete acceptance test plan. There is no application to test. Do not reuse these excerpts as legal drafting.

## Exercise B: POSTAWARD — contract excerpts and submitted records

**As-of date: October 31, 2026.** Review only the following H0, C1, A1, D1, REF1, V1, V2, E1–E7, I1, and L1. P0 is excluded.

### H0 — Contract manager’s exercise boundary note, October 31

For this exercise, an authorized contract manager confirms that C1 is an executed SOW excerpt and A1 is a signed amendment made by authorized parties. A1 controls the two provisions it expressly changes; otherwise C1 remains the baseline. D1 is an approved deliverable clarification consistent with C1, not an amendment. REF1 is an earlier solicitation excerpt not incorporated into this exercise agreement. V2 is not an authorized change. These are supplied exercise facts, not a general rule about precedence in real contracts.

The complete executed agreement, incorporated general provisions, payment clause, notice requirements, and legally relevant receipt facts are **not supplied**. Therefore acceptance/rejection windows, payment entitlement, remedies, and legal consequences cannot be determined. Obtain these promptly through the authorized contract owner for any live decision. The as-of date alone does not establish a contractual notice clock.

### C1 — Executed SOW excerpt, September 15

Project: service-request pilot for Cedar Valley Civic Services Office. Vendor: Juniper Digital. Deliverables due October 30, 2026 unless changed by authorized amendment.

| ID / clause | Agreed content in this fictional excerpt |
| --- | --- |
| R1 / §2.1 | Provide the submit, assign, and close request workflows. Submit executed test records for all three workflows, showing steps, expected result, actual result, tester, date, and environment. The office’s technical lead verifies the workflows in the agreed test environment. |
| R2 / §2.2 | Provide a CSV export with exactly these ordered headers: request_id, category, status, submitted_date. Submit a synthetic sample file and an executed export test from the delivered application, including tester, date, environment, steps, expected result, and actual result. No PDF export is required. |
| R3 / §2.3 | Submit the UAT report with requirement-to-test mapping, each test’s expected and actual results, tester/date, and defects with status and proposed resolution. Include the record of office test-lead review of unresolved defects. |
| R4 / §2.4 | Submit the final user guide in editable format and PDF, covering submit, assign, close, and export workflows. Both versions must identify the delivered application version. |
| R5 / §2.5 | Provide two 60-minute remote training sessions for office staff; submit a session record with date, duration, and attendance count, plus the training materials. |
| R6 / §2.6 | Submit a report documenting keyboard-only completion of the submit, assign, and close workflows in the agreed test environment: test steps, expected and actual results, tester/date/environment, defects and proposed remediation. The office accessibility lead reviews the results. This limited deliverable is not a determination of full legal or standards conformance. |

### A1 — Signed amendment excerpt, October 20

1. Replace C1 §2.5’s two sessions with **one 60-minute remote training session**, with the same supporting records/materials requirement.
2. Change C1 §2.4’s final user-guide delivery date to **November 6, 2026**.
3. No other C1 provision is changed by A1.

### D1 — Approved deliverable clarification excerpt, October 5

For R3, provide a mapping table connecting each C1 requirement tested to test IDs, followed by individual test records and the defect log described in C1 §2.3. Identify the covered application version. This describes how to organize the agreed report; it does not waive test records or create new functions.

### REF1 — Earlier solicitation excerpt, September 2

The draft solicitation anticipated PDF and CSV reporting and two remote training sessions. For this exercise H0 confirms that this excerpt was not incorporated into the agreement.

### V1 — Vendor submission cover message, October 30

“The pilot is complete. All workflows are operational. We have delivered reporting, UAT, documentation, training, and accessibility work. Please process the milestone invoice.”

This message contains no test records or attachments beyond E1–E7 below.

### V2 — Vendor email, October 28, unsigned change proposal

“Can we provide the final guide in December? We believe the draft is enough for now.” No office approval or authorized amendment is supplied. Do not assume agreement from silence.

### E1 — Workflow status memo, October 30

Author: vendor project coordinator. “Submit, assign, and close are operational.” No executed steps, expected/actual results, tester, test date, environment, or technical-lead verification supplied.

### E2 — Synthetic CSV sample, October 30

The following is the complete sample supplied in this exercise. It is not an export captured from a running application.

```csv
request_id,category,status,submitted_date
DEMO-001,Streetlight,Open,2026-10-27
DEMO-002,Park,Closed,2026-10-28
```

### E3 — UAT summary, October 30, version 1.0

Application version: 0.9. “30 tests planned: 29 passed, 1 blocked. UAT complete.” No requirement mapping, test IDs, individual expected/actual results, tester/date, defect log, proposed resolutions, or office review of the blocked item supplied.

### E4 — User-guide excerpt, October 29

Filename: User_Guide_DRAFT.pdf. Cover says “Draft 0.4; application version 0.8.” Contents supplied: submit and assign instructions only. No close/export sections, final PDF, or editable version supplied. The delivered application version is not independently established by this packet.

### E5 — Training record and materials, October 27

Session record: “Office staff training; October 27, 2026; 10:00–11:00; duration 60 minutes; attendance count 8.” Materials supplied: slide text covering submit, assign, close, and CSV export. No participant names are included. This is a supplied documentary record, not independent confirmation of attendance.

### E6 — Accessibility statement, October 30

“The application is accessible and meets WCAG.” No keyboard workflow test records, test method, results, tester/date/environment, defect information, remediation proposals, or office accessibility-lead review supplied.

### E7 — Submission manifest, October 30

Lists E1–E6 as received in the exercise review folder. It does not attest to authenticity, completeness, contract acceptance, or delivery to the contractually specified recipient. No other artifacts are in this exercise packet.

### I1 — Milestone invoice excerpt, October 30

Vendor requests $18,000 for “completed service-request pilot.” No per-deliverable allocation is supplied. The complete payment terms, tax treatment, prior payments, and authorized invoice disposition are not supplied. The amount is a fictional claim, not a validated payable balance.

### L1 — Review register excerpt, October 31

E1–E6 are marked “received for review.” The technical lead, accessibility lead, and authorized acceptance official fields are blank. No formal acceptance or rejection record is supplied. A blank field here is not proof that no action occurred elsewhere.

## Learner tasks

Inventory the sources; extract the current obligations; match each to evidence; draft factual questions; and identify the human checks required. Do not decide acceptance, breach, rejection, or payment. Do not access an application—none exists. Compare your output with file 05 after completing the exercise.