Meridian Field Services: instructional example, not project evidence
Every claim the project currently proceeds on, with its basis, its cost-if-wrong, one owner, and a date. Past-due is handled by update, never silence.
Scope: full register, as of 2026-09-15 · live register at workspace registers[1]. Confidence scale, stated once: high (independent evidence exists), medium (single credible source), low (belief without evidence).
| Id | Claim | Basis | Conf. | Impact if wrong | Owner | Due | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASM-01 | The vendor telematics feed sustains 400 positions/min at pilot fleet scale | Vendor capacity statement + contract SLA | medium | Board staleness breaks the liveness target | E. Sandoval | Sep 12 | validated (§4) |
| ASM-02 | Dispatchers adopt suggestion-first assignment within the pilot window | Journey-mapping sessions (future state[2]) | medium | The value case erodes (RSK-06[3]) | M. Chen | Oct 15 | validating |
| ASM-03 | The collective agreement permits during-shift location tracking with meaningful notice | HR counsel's preliminary read | medium | Pilot pause at the represented hub | N. Duval | was Aug 8 → Sep 30 | validating: extended after the union requested co-signature review; past-due handled by update, which is the rule; revalidation trigger: any collective-agreement renewal |
| ASM-04 | All five hubs run the same dispatch intake process | Operations leadership statement at kickoff | high (wrongly) | Rollout plan misfits diverging hubs | M. Chen | n/a | BROKEN Jul 28 → spawned RSK-05[3] |
| ASM-05 | The HR directory remains authoritative for the technician roster through pilot | Integration contract (system of record[4]) | high | Roster sync design re-opens | A. Reyes | Jul 31 | validated (§4) |
Plans name their method (test, analysis, inspection, demonstration); "we will see" is not a plan. A broken assumption keeps its row and spawns a risk; it never relabels itself in place.
| Row | Method | Plan | What the answer changes |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASM-02 | demonstration | Observe assignment flows for the first two pilot weeks against the override-rate indicator (US-3 telemetry[5]) | A sustained rate above 40% breaks the claim and re-scopes the suggestion loop (FR-013[6]) |
| ASM-03 | analysis | Labor counsel's written opinion + the union co-signature review | The answer sets the notice text (consent model[7]) |
Pipeline, shown: ASM-04 flipped to broken, kept its row, and spawned RSK-05[3], where scoring and response live; nothing about Calgary is restated here. Escalation: ASM-03 is high-impact and twice-extended, so it rides the risk register's weekly steering cadence alongside RSK-07[3] until validated.
What proceeds on each claim, by id, both directions, and what re-opens when it breaks, so a break routes work instead of surprise.
| Row | Depends on it | Blast if broken |
|---|---|---|
| ASM-01 | The architecture's scale frame + the breakpoint scenario (quality scenarios[4], PS-3[8]) | The capacity plan re-opens |
| ASM-02 | FR-002[6], US-3[5], the BRD value case (objectives[9]) | The suggestion loop re-scopes before hub two |
| ASM-03 | SR-033[10], the consent model (lawful bases[7]), the TM-05 acceptance (threat model[11]) | Override telemetry pauses; dispatch does not |
| ASM-04 | BD-1[12] rollout sequencing + the journey-map portfolio (portfolio[2]) | The break re-sequenced phase two (it happened) |
| ASM-05 | Technician[13] + the board's read copy | The sync design re-opens |
Both directions hold; each cited row lists its ASM ids in its own dependencies.
A verbal confirmation nobody recorded validates nothing; evidence is resolvable, dated, and named.
| Row | Method | Evidence | Signed · date |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASM-01 | test | The breakpoint run measured failure onset at 2,150 positions/min against the 400 needed (PS-3 results, run export[8]) | E. Sandoval · Sep 13 |
| ASM-05 | inspection | The integration contract names the HR directory authoritative through pilot (contract extracts[14]) | A. Reyes · Jul 30 |
| ASM-04 | breaking evidence | The Calgary intake walkthrough notes (research notes[2]), recorded Jul 28; that record is why the break routed work instead of surprise | M. Chen · Jul 28 |
The boundary, stated once: a QUESTION is an unknown awaiting an answer (no default position). An ASSUMPTION is a claim held true so work proceeds (a default position with an owner). A RISK is a possible future harmful event. An answered question becomes an assumption, a logged decision, or a plain fact; it never stays a question.
Boundary applied: "does hub six exist in the rollout plan" is a question (tracked at BD-2[12]); "Calgary runs the same intake" WAS an assumption and broke; "vendor outage stales the board" is a risk (RSK-04[3]).
| Question | Owner | Answer by | Blocks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ASM-02's demonstration window extend if pilot start slips past October 1? | M. Chen | Sep 26, 2026 | The ASM-02 due date only |