11. Two contrasting cases

11.1 A small single-session correction

A person asks for a clearer error message in an internal tool. The agent locates the message, the condition that produces it and the user's expected next action.

The agent discovers that the wording suggests data was saved when the operation was actually refused. The correction therefore concerns meaning, not merely style. It changes the message and exercises both the refusal and success paths.

If no permission, persistence or other consequential behavior changes, a focused examination can be adequate under the applicable rules. A new manager, project basis and global dependency audit would add no useful warrant.

The agent reports the change and actual check. The work is complete when the message accurately guides the intended action under the authorized scope. No separate activity record is required.

This case demonstrates proportionality without vagueness. Small work still needs the correct question and a real observation. It does not need the organizational structure of a programme.

11.2 A parallel technical investigation

A project must compare several approaches to a consequential calculation. The team has a common input definition, acceptance basis and independent reference. Some assumptions remain unresolved.

The coordinator first checks that the shared reference supports the intended range and that each worker will use the same units and conventions. It selects a difficult connecting case rather than only easy examples.

Independent approaches can then proceed concurrently. The assignment identifies each contribution's outputs, limits and expected comparison. Shared files have one owner. Resource-intensive runs are scheduled around actual memory and machine limits.

One worker reports a discrepancy outside the supported reference range. That finding does not invalidate all other work. The coordinator distinguishes an unsupported comparison from a demonstrated implementation error and identifies the additional evidence needed.

Another worker finds a units inconsistency in the common input definition. That affects all dependent results. The coordinator resolves the shared interpretation within authority, updates the governing source and checks which results must be repeated.

The final comparison explains actual coverage, limitations and material differences. It does not select a winner solely by test count or execution speed. The responsible person makes the consequential choice using evidence appropriate to the intended use.

The case shows why concurrency and shared-basis examination belong together. More workers cannot compensate for a mistaken common premise. A sound common premise does not justify holding independent work behind an unrelated delay.