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.
Disposition under GGA (R6)
Historical record about the 1.3 proposal, written before the GGA documents arrived. It is preserved verbatim below and is not GGA approval, policy or an oracle. Where it disagrees with the GGA documents (see GGA-Source-Digest), the GGA documents govern (Vault-Update-Plan section 9, N1 and N2). “DG” in the text below means GGA. Current dispositions: Decision-Index-staged, Scenario-Dispositions-staged.
Round DG Service 1 Owner Review
Original: dg-company-review-round1.md.
Paying-company review, round 1 — proposed DG service
Actual design exchange: agent 52e636bf75ed represents A and B separately; agent 22b17a299d93 represents DG. No real company is being contacted, no fees are set and no service or application test has been executed.
DG, the distinction I need is: software bought by DG, a paid service DG sells to A, and a separate paid service DG sells to B. A development milestone is not evidence that either member received its service.
1. Onboarding and verification
A: “Before paying, give me the written service description and what evidence you will check. After checking, send: ‘We reviewed [evidence class] supplied by your authorised admin on [date]; these facts were checked, these remain unverified.’ I do not want a paid badge that implies you checked credit, capability or every statement.”
B: “I am small and cannot supply the same evidence as A. Tell me the alternative evidence route and what happens if I am not approved. Do you take payment before eligibility is established, and which promised service is still undelivered if you reject me?”
Challenge: Membership approval is Balanced. A dated evidence label is a proposed Q05/Q08 contract, not approval of an automated vetting system. Evidence review, proportional alternatives and a receipt can be manual. No raw-evidence upload, due-diligence engine or payment workflow is silently included. Please give the rejection/alternative-evidence reply and the service/remedy boundary without promising a refund policy DG has not approved.
2. Curated introductions and failed fit
A: “What work did you do beyond sending the same public opportunity to everyone? My service receipt should say which published needs/capabilities you compared and where the fit is uncertain. Do not claim B is interested before B agrees.”
B: “I also pay you. Say plainly whether A pays, what you do for each of us, and whether payment affects ranking or who gets introduced. My reply is: ‘You may send me a published opportunity. Do not share my identity, interest or contact details with A until I approve that specific introduction.’”
Challenge: A published-link suggestion to B is different from a named bilateral introduction. The latter needs separate authority from each company for the exact recipient, fields and purpose. If no fit exists, DG must report ‘No suitable candidate found under these criteria’ rather than count a blast as a delivered introduction. Give an example of a no-fit report and one-sided refusal. Do not manufacture quotas, exclusivity or guaranteed introductions.
3. Unanswered questions
A: “An opaque question ID cannot identify me. Do not quietly resolve the ID to my admin. I can ask for help from my own queue: ‘Please help us respond to this item; contact only our named admin and do not forward the question.’”
B: “After silence I can tell DG: ‘I have not received a response. You may contact A using this approved neutral text; do not send my question or terms.’ I need an acknowledgement and a next step, not an unsupported promise that A will answer.”
Challenge: DG’s proactive named queue/escalation is additional software scope and needs Q08 mapping. But company-requested manual help can use a deliberately supplied reference and authorised contact without DG reading the private exchange. What does DG say if A refuses help or does not respond? Who owns follow-up and when does the manual case close? Proposed response windows remain blanks for DG, not a hidden SLA.
4. Negotiation support and both parties paying
A: “Do not use anything I tell you in private coaching to improve B’s bargaining position. I may approve a joint call on agenda X, not blanket access to our platform history.”
B: “Tell me both parties pay before I consent. My instruction is: ‘You may facilitate scheduling and the agreed agenda. You may not negotiate a concession for me, accept an offer or report my private limit to A.’ If you cannot remain neutral, offer separate representation or stop.”
Challenge: ‘DG never reads private messages’ conflicts with a proposal to join a thread from an invitation onward. Keep product participation outside Balanced and do not make it the default answer. A separate manual meeting can use an agreed agenda and newly supplied material only. Define exact fields/purpose/recipients/period, revocation and a check before each disclosure; silence is not consent. A cannot authorise disclosure of B’s material by forwarding it. Give the reply when only A consents, when B revokes mid-call, and when a staff member has a conflict.
5. Stalled discussions
A: “A pause or a slow answer is not permission to intervene, penalise ranking or expose our status. Our own team may request an office-hours session without DG seeing the other party’s discussion.”
B: “My next action is commercially sensitive. Do not tell A that I marked it overdue in my own work view. If I request a joint check-in, ask A separately using only text I authorised.”
Challenge: DG does not have a cross-company overdue view by default. A manual service check-in can be scheduled from a service record voluntarily supplied by that client; a conversation-triggered outreach needs explicit mapping/permission and additional software if automated. Explain how you distinguish helpful follow-up from pressure, and how ‘do not contact’ overrides it.
6. Outcomes, evidence of value and renewal
A: “You can ask me whether the service was useful. My private report must not become a testimonial or a verified successful deal. Show the difference between service delivered, discussion started and partnership independently confirmed.”
B: “If I say no deal and A says success, retain both private reports without telling each side what the other said. Ask my separate permission before publishing my identity or result.”
Challenge: Opaque accepted/closed states cannot drive named follow-up without approved mapping. Generic periodic client feedback or follow-up tied to a consenting manual case is possible without reading platform threads. A manually controlled service ledger is a staff procedure; only an integrated DG dashboard/log/automated outcome collection is additional software. Give a concrete private receipt and contradictory-outcome response. No fabricated ROI or success rate.
7. Complaint, failure, non-delivery and remedy
A: “B never responded. I want to know which promised service DG actually delivered and which remains open; I do not accept ‘no deal guaranteed’ as an answer to DG doing no work.”
B: “A asks for a refund and blames me. You must not give A my confidential explanation to defend DG. Your complaint reviewer should see only authorised evidence, and a staff member whose work is challenged should not decide alone.”
Proposed DG reply for you to improve: “We have received your complaint [reference]. We will compare your agreed service deliverables with the evidence of what DG did. We cannot promise another company’s response or disclose its information. Your requested remedy will be reviewed by [role] under the agreed policy, with the next update by [agreed window]. No remedy has been decided yet.”
Challenge: Distinguish no deal despite delivered work, failed-fit introduction, DG non-delivery, false verification and confidentiality incident. Do not invent ‘no refunds’ or a blanket refund entitlement. Define who decides, what gets recorded, escalation/review route, and how disputed work is marked. A security complaint needs immediate triage under an agreed incident procedure, not just routine commercial handling. A non-paying staff member or spoofed email cannot revoke a company’s instructions or obtain its ledger.
Required answer and next iteration
Please answer A and B separately with example DG replies for each case, revise your category errors, and propose a service-deliverable/evidence matrix. Then I will run an adversarial round against consent withdrawal, double charging/duplicate work, spoofed contacts, private-message forwarding, neutrality and complaint evidence. Please hand back a DG review verdict only after that round. I will preserve T01–T40 and add separately identified DG service cases, with software/manual/extra-scope status and unresolved policy dependencies.