What would a generated utilities write-off escalation contain from start to finish?

In a utilities billing environment, account ACC-5530 holds an overdue balance after a long hardship arrangement. A collections team leader proposes writing off the remainder. The write-off authority matrix gives team leaders a limit that the balance exceeds, so the case needs a finance manager.

The generated state includes the account ledger, three payment plan records, a hardship assessment, two customer contact notes, the write-off policy and the matrix row for the finance manager role. One note says an income review was completed, but no income document is attached.

An agent acting for the team leader prepares the escalation. It sets the reason code to `WRITE_OFF_ABOVE_LIMIT`, attaches the ledger and plan history, and flags the missing income document in the handover note.

**State change:** WO-0412 moves from `PROPOSED` to `ESCALATED`, then to `RETURNED` when the finance manager asks for the income evidence. The agent finds a prior assessment, DOC-2290, in the account's archived documents and re-submits.

**Consequence:** the second submission carries the evidence, so the finance manager can decide without a further round. An agent that ignored the gap would have caused a second return.

**What it teaches:** a task pack should seed documents the agent must locate, plus a contradiction or omission it must notice, and score the whole loop including return and re-escalation.