# Completed demonstration example — release-authority revision memo

**Authored alternate example.** Every route stays open. The disruption changes an authorisation dependency rather than equipment or transport availability.

## Version 1 and its authority
Verify ledger → Seal case → Dispatch case → Log receipt.

The original release authority permitted this order. Ledger identity and equipment checks were supplied as valid; the plan was preserved before the replacement notice.

## Published disruption
The replacement notice withdraws the old dispatch authority. Before sealing, the investigator must compare the recipient’s request with this ledger’s identity and purpose. The coordinator must record the new authorisation. Neither open routes nor working equipment removes those conditions.

## Diagnosis and retained evidence
The failed dependency is the old authority to seal and dispatch. The unchanged signed ledger comparison remains useful for identity. Equipment remains available. Neither finding establishes that the recipient’s current request covers this ledger. No route change is required.

## Version 2
Verify ledger → Check recipient scope → Record new authorisation → Seal case → Dispatch case → Log receipt.

The investigator owns scope comparison and sends the result to the coordinator. The coordinator records authority and authorises sealing only when both prerequisites are met. If scope is unresolved or authorisation absent, stop before sealing. The route, verified identity and receipt obligation remain unchanged.

## Communication and status
The coordinator reads back the new order and stop condition; all roles acknowledge them. Version 1 stays preserved. This memo records a revised plan, not an invented completed authorisation or dispatch.

## Reflection
My first temptation was to choose another route, but availability was not the dependency the notice changed. The important change was the point at which permission had to be established. Adding a scope check after dispatch would mention the new rule without satisfying it. I kept the identity evidence, named an investigator to check scope, and made the coordinator receive and record the result before sealing. In the assigned route or meter disruptions I must identify their different failed dependency instead of copying this sequence.

Named output: revised-plan. No physical dispatch or grant of authority is claimed.

## Method to carry forward

Preserve valid decisions and revise only dependencies invalidated by new evidence.

This example changes authority while leaving equipment intact. Your disruption concerns availability and needs different replacement evidence.

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.

The chapter investigation and its explained record complete the core method. The scene delivery is an optional extension; it is not evidence of deeper understanding on its own.