FICTIONAL DELIVERED EXAMPLE · 28 AUGUST 2026 · NOT A CUSTOMER RESULT

From a legacy MTurk workflow to a decision-ready mapping hold.

This wholly fictional Archive-to-Mapping Delivery shows what a small requester team receives after its operational archive is structured. It separates preserved facts, candidate-route questions, unknowns, owner actions and a synthetic pilot stop rule—without claiming that another platform is equivalent.

Request free redacted triageSee US$250 / US$750 scope

3fictional workflow rows frozen
2candidate routes mapped as questions
7explicit unknowns retained
0real records, live pilots or equivalence claims
Evidence and privacy boundary: “Harborlight Decision Lab” is a wholly fictional composite. No customer, university, requester account, study, worker, participant, email address, payment record or private ethics document is represented. The delivery uses synthetic counts and redacted-style pointers. It is operational documentation and test planning—not IRB/ethics, legal, privacy, labour, procurement or research-methods advice.

Delivered packet: frozen facts before route choice

EX-MT-02 · Harborlight Decision Lab

Wholly fictional composite · delivery state recorded 28 August 2026

archive_complete_mapping_hold
Workflow unit A

General eligibility screen. Synthetic target: 240 responses. Qualification logic is described in plain language; platform-specific identifiers are redacted.

Workflow unit B

Main survey batch. Synthetic target: 180 responses. Reward basis, rejection/approval rule, code dependency and export owner are recorded separately.

Workflow unit C

Follow-up batch. Synthetic target: 60 responses. Recontact logic is retained as a restricted pointer, not copied into the delivery.

Closure ownership

Operations owns HIT-state freeze; finance owns transaction-history export; research lead owns consent/ethics artifact pointers; engineering owns code and API dependency archive.

Archive acceptance register

ControlDelivered evidenceStateOwner action
Workflow purpose and row IDsThree operational units named; no participant rows included.AcceptedKeep the frozen worksheet read-only.
Qualification semanticsPlain-language inclusion/exclusion rules recorded; MTurk qualification IDs redacted.AcceptedResearch lead confirms wording before route tests.
Approval / rejection / bonus stateSynthetic pending counts are zero; owner and deadline fields are populated.AcceptedReal requester must verify its own state before 30 October.
Transaction-history exportExport location is represented by an authorised-storage pointer only.Owner confirmationFinance verifies export completeness before 28 January.
Code and API dependenciesLauncher, callback and result-normalisation components are named; secrets are excluded.AcceptedEngineering records version/commit references.
Participant or worker dataNo raw responses, identities, worker IDs or payment details were received.Out of scopeCustomer retains data under its own authorised rules.

Candidate-route matrix: questions, not recommendations

Decision fieldRoute A: researcher-facing participant platformRoute B: another researcher-facing participant platformDelivery state
Named workflow availabilityPublic researcher page exists; named-team access not tested.Public researcher page exists; named-team access not tested.Unknown
Qualification translationPublic surface does not establish semantic equivalence to the archived rule.Public surface does not establish semantic equivalence to the archived rule.No equivalence claim
Geography / participant-pool fitRequires account-level confirmation and research-owner review.Requires account-level confirmation and research-owner review.Unknown
API / export shapeNot tested; field mapping remains a backlog item.Not tested; field mapping remains a backlog item.Unknown
Price / procurementNo quote or institution-specific purchasing route obtained.No quote or institution-specific purchasing route obtained.Unknown
Consent / ethics suitabilityNot determined by this operational review.Not determined by this operational review.Research owner decision
Sampling / outcome comparabilityNot established by vendor pages or a small pilot.Not established by vendor pages or a small pilot.No equivalence claim

The paid mapping sprint may name specific candidate routes after written scope acceptance. This public example deliberately keeps labels generic: a candidate-route page is not evidence of named-team access, methodological suitability, budget fit or migration success.

Smallest safe test: synthetic first, then owner decision

Freeze the test contract

Use a synthetic questionnaire with no participant or customer data. Record required fields, expected state transitions, export format and who may approve any move beyond synthetic testing.

Run a no-recruitment dry mapping

Map archived workflow fields to candidate-route fields on paper. If a required qualification, consent pointer, export field or owner is missing, mark hold_missing_evidence.

Stop before live recruitment

A live pilot starts only after the research owner, privacy/ethics owner and procurement owner separately clear their responsibilities. The Exit Kit does not provide those determinations.

Evaluate without equivalence language

Compare operational completeness, field preservation and failure visibility. Do not infer sample, quality, demographic, consent, timing or outcome equivalence from one small pilot.

Seven unknowns the delivery refuses to hide

1 · Named-team access

Can the fictional requester procure and use either route?

2 · Qualification semantics

Can each archived rule be represented without changing meaning?

3 · Participant-pool fit

Does the route fit the research owner’s actual geography and population need?

4 · Ethics and consent

What separate approval or amendment is required?

5 · API and export

Which state and result fields survive the operational mapping?

6 · Procurement and price

What institution-specific purchasing, contract and budget path applies?

7 · Comparability

What evidence would be required before any research-methods comparison?

Close-out: what is ready, held and excluded

Ready · archive handoff

  • Three operational workflow rows
  • Owner/deadline register
  • Restricted-data and unknown register
  • Code/API dependency pointers
  • One factual/source-link correction round

Hold · route decision

  • No platform selected or recommended
  • No named-team access or price verified
  • No qualification or sampling equivalence claimed
  • No live recruitment, account access or data transfer
  • No IRB/ethics, privacy, legal or procurement determination
Commercial scope shown: this example illustrates the output shape of the US$750 Assisted Mapping Sprint price test, which includes the US$250 Archive Readiness Pack. Prices are validation hypotheses, not proven market rates. Delivery starts only after written scope/evidence acceptance and cleared payment; real sensitive data handling would require a separate authorised scope and is not assumed.

Request the free three-observation triageAsk a scope question