What linked state would a utilities hardship escalation scenario generate?

A utility's customer hardship officer is handling case HARD-0931. The account, ACC-5520, carries 2,340 in arrears, and the customer asks for an 18-month payment plan. The officer's delegated limit is 12 months, set out in rule AUTH-H1.

The starting state holds five linked records: the account, the arrears ledger, an active collections hold HOLD-0212 that expires in ten days, a draft plan PLAN-0931 with status PROPOSED, and the case itself in IN_REVIEW.

The agent reads AUTH-H1, sees that 18 months exceeds 12, and calls `escalate` to the hardship team leader with reason `TERM_EXCEEDS_LIMIT`. It also requests an extension of HOLD-0212, which sits within its authority. The case moves to PENDING_SENIOR, PLAN-0931 stays PROPOSED, and the hold's expiry moves out so the customer is not disconnected while the decision is pending.

The team leader responds with a 15-month plan. The agent updates PLAN-0931, notifies the customer and records the outcome.

**Consequence:** an agent that escalated but forgot the hold would leave the customer exposed to a collections step while waiting for approval, a failure visible only in the linked records.

**What it teaches:** - Escalation is rarely a single write. - Some adjacent actions remain within the junior role's authority and should still be taken. - Grading needs cross-record checks.