Status. Proposed design only. Nothing in this vault is DG client approval. No application, service or test has been executed; every scenario is Not executed. Fees and dates are open.

Round Extension Owner Adversarial

Original: dg-owner-round3-adversarial.md.

---

Owner adversarial follow-up — corrections before the new annex

I accept the three scope corrections, limited evidence-based DG check, optional newsletter, separate public permission and no outcome guarantees. Open values remain DG decisions; we can write conditional cases now without pretending to decide those values. Please confirm these corrections and give your verdict.

1. Regression: counterparty refusal is still private. Your one-to-one/intro answer says “They declined; we won’t share why or who.” That reveals a response was sought and declined, violating DG08. Owner reply: “Tell me my work status, not another company’s refusal.” Use the same sentence regardless of decline, silence or no approach: “No introduction is arranged under this request. We do not disclose other companies’ responses or whether any were sought.” Only that other company can approve an attributed reply.

2. Advisory work can be disputed for quality. Saying a dispute exists only for missing comments or out-of-scope comments is too narrow. Owner: “Your agreed review missed a required check and gave materially wrong advice.” A non-involved reviewer must compare quality/checklist obligations with the agreement, without promising partner results. Also, comments merely Sent are not acknowledged, accepted or automatically completed under the DG16 evidence ladder. Use “comments sent; completion claimed against [agreed review criteria]; owner acceptance/dispute [state].” Rejecting a suggestion alone is not a service failure, but it cannot prevent a genuine quality complaint.

3. Don’t negate the sessions I bought. “Does not cover a meeting” conflicts with a tier containing DG one-to-one sessions. Owner: “I expect the promised DG session; I don’t expect a guaranteed meeting with a commercial counterparty.” Make that distinction. Cancellation/no-show/capacity/provider failure create the actual completed/unmet record under prior terms; no invented credits, refund or fee. Weekly cadence is the proposed offer, but schedule, eligibility, capacity, coverage and remedy are unconfirmed.

4. Don’t invent guest features or a new veto. Your guest matrix is a proposal, including access to own draft/status and correction/resubmission. No new public pages or owner export function is silently added. Pending corrections must be possible through an agreed route without overwriting the submitted revision. Rejection/revocation blocks member/private content, while own-intake support/retention is still a policy choice. Membership eligibility does not turn DG feedback into mandatory offer approval.

5. Removal receipts must follow actions. Your “Stopped … DG channels removed” sentence can falsely claim completion when a request was only received. Owner: “First confirm the affected hold, then tell me what you actually removed.” Proposed first reply: “We recorded your request and held the affected unsent items. Removal of controlled placements is [requested/in progress/confirmed with evidence]. Already-sent items [list] cannot be recalled.” A later receipt states only verified takedown results. Expired consent or a new copy revision blocks scheduled posting, not just a request received before a campaign starts.

6. Group session privacy is limited, not magical. Name/company, email CC, attendee roster, Q&A, chat, recording, transcript and third-party AI bots each need an audience/permission policy. DG cannot promise that another attendee won’t take a screenshot. Use approved provider controls, neutral/private display options where supported, no default recording/bot, and an immediate pause for a spill. Remove what DG controls; treat unauthorised exposure as an incident under Q18. Any later general written summary must omit private examples and be cleared for its own audience.

7. Public and private channels are separate. A portal opportunity, public news item, newsletter, backlink and social post each needs its own exact version/channel/audience/period permission. Membership/verification approval is not publicity consent. A staff-curated public item can be Manual on an already approved channel; self-service publishing/boosting and integrations remain Added scope. A shared URL, redirect, UTM tag or edited price cannot smuggle private terms or new tracking into approved copy. Recheck link/claim before publishing; hold when it changes. Withdrawal of a specific placement is separate from unsubscribing or revoking membership.

8. Failed curation doesn’t become achieved partner work. Rename the proposed benefit “partner discovery and consent-based introduction assistance.” If the promised candidate must have a current limited DG check and that check lapses, pause/recheck or seek a disclosed service amendment; do not silently substitute unverified partners. A search completed is not an intro made; a DG session is not counterparty acknowledgement; none is an overseas deal. A complaint about old outcome-like marketing must retain its original promise in the evidence, not rewrite history after correcting the wording.

9. Tradeshows/news corrections and opt-out. No actual event facts are supplied here. Examples use [source/date checked/status]; a source claim isn’t an endorsement or guarantee. If information changes after a newsletter, record correction and use only an approved contact route. Newsletter opt-out is not permission to send more promotional “corrections”; any necessary service-notice treatment needs a separate policy. No guarantee an external page, backlink, social post or recording is fully erased.

10. Wiki status and decisions. The Obsidian index will link local source snapshots, TDD/JSON/Gherkin, Q01–Q18 and new Q decisions, and the actual exchanges. It will label old drafts/withdrawn proposals as historical. It won’t label a design-agent verdict as DG client approval or a scenario as Passed. No prices, promised remedy values or current external-platform rules will be invented.

Please answer the owner with revised example replies for these cases and hand back your DG-side design verdict. I will then send the new scenarios and annex for final text review and keep unresolved decisions explicit rather than holding up the document.