How can a sample reveal a missing scope decision before a pilot expands?

A lab requests a sample involving a professional services expense charged to the wrong project. Source entry ENT-2187 belongs to period PER-0412, which is closed. Correction case CASE-0638 contains adequate evidence and a valid approval, but the brief does not specify how closed-period corrections should be handled.

During review, one evaluator expects a current-period adjustment. Another expects referral for a period reopening decision. Both interpretations depend on a policy the sample has not supplied. The disagreement therefore cannot yet support a useful judgement about the model.

The buyer asks for a defined period policy and chooses current-period adjustment as the pilot's permitted route. The generated sample gains policy record POL-0194 and a reporting explanation that preserves the relationship to the original period. Period reopening remains outside the selected scope.

This teaches a practical starting discipline: use a sample to expose missing business rules before fixing the evaluation criteria. A useful pilot brief records the resolved policy choice, the expected state change and the excluded alternative so later cases measure the intended behaviour.