# Completed demonstration example — dome handoff

## Role information
Analyst card: five sealed cases to Dome, verification VIOLET.
Operator: controls dispatch and must request exact destination, count and code.

## Recorded exchange
Analyst: “Deliver five sealed cases to Dome; verification code VIOLET. Read back before dispatch.”
Operator first read-back: “Dome, four, VIOLET.”
Analyst: “Correct the count to five.”
Operator corrected read-back: “Dome, five, VIOLET.”
Analyst: “Confirmed.”

The count mismatch was found before movement. A bare acknowledgement would not have exposed it.

## Changed situation
New card: Pool / 2 / SILVER. The team repeated the same protocol with new values. The operator's matching read-back was confirmed separately from the earlier handoff.

## Agreement
The analyst owns instruction accuracy; the operator records and repeats the three fields; either role may stop if a field conflicts. A completed acknowledgement applies to one identified instruction, not every later delivery.

## Reflection
The protocol was useful because it made the receiver's interpretation visible. My error was a wrong count, not unwillingness to cooperate. In another task I would preserve exact labels and ask which condition permits action, especially when the roles see different screens.

Named output: handoff-agreement. This is an alternate demonstration, not the assigned Relay/Archive/Dispatch answer.

## Method to carry forward

Ask for missing information, correct the read-back and reconfirm changed instructions.

The assigned roles hold different fields; the receiver must supply its own access condition. A confirmed example message cannot authorise it.

The complete example explains one defensible approach. In your own challenge, select observations and tests from the supplied rules, keep your prediction separate from the result, and justify both the checks you perform and those you omit.