Campaign packets — qualification

Record status

Record ID

field-guide:campaign-packets

Parent lifecycle

candidate

Page lane

docs_urls

Lane lifecycle

proposed

Owner

Rebecca

Owner role

Not separately recorded

Owner status

Not separately recorded

Qualification result

NOT RUN · held for evidence and human review

Working browser surface: Field guides — documentation — Inspect the guide and persist local checkpoints. This route is local-only; provider, credential, database, customer, publication, deployment, and production effects remain held.

Qualification status

Result

NOT RUN

Disposition

HELD

Reviewer

Not recorded

Receipt

Not recorded

This page defines proposed acceptance criteria for the docs_urls lane. It does not execute tests, establish compliance, qualify the subject, or authorize an effect.

Outcome definitions

Verified

All stated evidence and acceptance requirements passed for the exact reviewed revision; this still does not authorize deployment or an external effect.

Failed

One or more deterministic acceptance requirements failed with an inspectable reason.

Needs review

Evidence or interpretation is incomplete, conflicting, or awaits an identified human reviewer.

Held

Authority, required evidence, safe execution conditions, or a principal gate is absent.

The current record remains NOT RUN / HELD. These definitions describe candidate outcomes only.

Proposed deterministic acceptance tests

Route-resolution and distinct-content checks apply only to the admitted canonical routes in this record. Held source-proposed extensions are non-resolving proposals and are excluded.

• The overview page explains the packet's purpose, owner, lifecycle, prerequisites, canonical record, and held external effects.
• Every listed documentation route has distinct content: overview, procedural steps, form guidance, worked example, qualification criteria, or a specific related job.
• The guide links to each supplied related job and does not introduce unlisted jobs as source-backed facts.
• A packet can be created with implementable fields for intent, planning, drafts, assets, approvals, workback, and post-performance records.
• A reviewer can trace every draft, asset reference, approval decision, deadline, and post-performance observation to a record ID or source-labelled note.
• Approval states are visibly limited to Needs review, Approved, and Held, with a preserved receipt reference.
• The guide never states that campaign content was sent, published, uploaded, delivered, indexed for customers, or connected to a provider.
• The guide labels unsupported claims, missing evidence, held effects, and incomplete qualification states clearly.
• Keyboard navigation, visible focus, labelled fields, error summaries, non-color status labels, and readable date formats are required for all proposed forms.
• A failed validation preserves entered values, identifies the offending field, and does not create a falsely complete packet.
• Lifecycle labels remain honest: this guide and its pages are proposed; app surfaces retain their observed prototype or indexed states.
• Search and related-job pages provide useful distinct summaries and links rather than duplicate keyword pages.

Negative and held-state tests

• A draft may be mistaken for approved or published content if lifecycle and approval state are not shown together.
• Asset references may be mistaken for uploaded or rights-cleared assets; custody, permission, and upload state must remain explicit.
• A named owner agent does not prove provider access, execution authority, or external delivery capability.
• Campaign metrics may be fabricated if post-performance records accept unlabelled or unavailable evidence.
• Deadline changes can erase accountability unless revisions and reasons are preserved.
• Recipient, channel, accessibility, or claim-review errors can survive if approval routing is treated as a single undifferentiated gate.
• Private work, customer data, and public documentation can be mixed unless visibility and source labels are preserved.
• Long or malformed content can break forms; validation and deterministic failure states are required.
• Duplicate route pages can become doorway content if each page does not answer a distinct question.

Qualification claim boundary

Potentially allowed only after the stated evidence

• A proposed Guth field guide can describe a campaign-packet workflow from social planning through post-performance records.
• The supplied source record names Rebecca as owner agent and lists Social planning, Draft preparation, Asset coordination, Approval routing, and Post-performance records as related jobs.
• Observed Notebook surfaces include field guides, projects, notes, files, to-dos, agenda, messages, approvals, paper, search, and agent logs with the stated prototype or indexed labels.
• The workflow can require provenance, revisions, source-labelled records, explicit approval states, deadlines, and held external effects.

Still held

• Do not claim that this guide is deployed, published, indexed for customers, or connected to a production database.
• Do not claim that Rebecca or any provider can send messages, publish campaigns, upload assets, access customers, or write to external calendars.
• Do not claim that campaign performance metrics, delivery results, audience data, rights clearance, or approvals exist unless supplied as records.
• Do not claim qualification, completion, successful routing, or external execution from a proposed form or local receipt.
• Do not claim that any app route is a connected production feature; observed routes are local prototypes or indexes and external effects remain held.

Sources and evidence

These pointers bind the page to evidence. They do not grant authority or collapse verification into deployment.

• source_record:field-guide:campaign-packets
• agents/index.html#rebecca
• Observed native contract: project_and_field_guide_collections
• Observed native contract: deadlines
• Observed native contract: records
• Observed native contract: pointguard