02 — TERMINOLOGY: Scope Discipline Kit
Locked vocabulary for the Scope Discipline Kit. Every generated scope-check doc and every scripted response uses these terms in exactly these ways. Deviations confuse the advisor at the moment of decision, which defeats the purpose.
Core Terms
| Term | Meaning | NOT This |
|---|---|---|
| Lane | The set of work categories the advisor's firm delivers — bounded by expertise, licensure, and firm identity. What the firm does. | Not "everything the advisor could technically do." Technical capability is not lane. An HR advisor who could audit payroll technically is still out of lane when doing it. |
| Lever | The decision-making authority or action required to close an outcome. If the lever is in someone else's hands, the advisor's effort doesn't convert to results. | Not "influence." Influence is not lever. The advisor may influence a board decision; only the board has the lever. |
| In scope | Work explicitly included in the current SOW for this engagement. Verb-led, specific, pointed-to language. | Not "work the advisor could do." Not "work the advisor has done in past engagements." Scope is per-engagement and contractual, not capability-based. |
| Out of scope | Work outside the current SOW. Includes both lane violations and lever violations, plus any work neither specified nor implied by the SOW. | Not "work the advisor doesn't want to do." Scope definition is contractual, not preferential. |
| Trigger | A specific, repeatable signal from a client that an out-of-scope ask is incoming. Must name a person, topic, or circumstance concretely. | Not "when the client emails." That's not specific enough. "When [the primary stakeholder] emails about [recurring problem topic]" is specific. |
| Scripted response | Pre-written language in the advisor's voice that the advisor can send when a trigger fires. Starter, not final copy — always editable per moment. | Not a mandatory script. Not a robo-response. The scripted response is scaffolding; the actual send is the advisor's choice. |
| Favor | Work the advisor elects to do for a client outside scope, as a deliberate relational gesture, with an explicit time cap and explicit no-precedent framing. | Not "unpaid work that accidentally happened." Favors are chosen; bleed is absorbed. A favor without a cap is bleed. |
| Cap | A maximum time or dollar limit on a favor. When the cap is hit, the favor is complete — further work requires a formal scope expansion or gets declined. | Not a soft limit or a suggestion. The cap is binding; hitting it is the trigger for the next conversation. |
| Scope expansion | A formal addition to the engagement — new scope, new deliverables, new pricing, documented in a change order or new SOW before work begins. | Not an informal mid-email agreement. Not "we'll figure it out." Scope expansion has a document that both parties can point to. |
| Wind-down | The structured exit from an out-of-scope pattern that's already active. Names remaining work, caps additional hours, defines the hand-off. | Not firing the client. Not an abrupt stop. Not an apology. Wind-down is controlled exit with a defined endpoint. |
| Bleed | Unplanned, unbilled, unscoped hours logged on client work. The failure mode the kit exists to prevent. | Not just "unpaid work." Favors can be unpaid and still structured; bleed is the unstructured version where hours accumulate without anyone's conscious choice. |
| Pattern recognition | The documented history of a specific client's out-of-scope asks. Lives in the "Historical" section of the scope-check doc. | Not speculation. Pattern recognition enters the doc only after an actual incident. Hypothetical patterns belong elsewhere. |
| Scope-check (noun) | The living markdown document the kit produces per client. Lives at clients/[client-name]/scope-check.md. | Not a form. Not a checklist. A document that accumulates Review Log entries and evolves with the engagement. |
| Lane violation | An out-of-scope category where the ask falls outside the firm's service lines. Q1 = No. | Not "work the advisor declines." Lane violations are structural, not preferential. |
| Lever violation | An out-of-scope category where the outcome requires someone else's action. Q2 = No. | Not "work the advisor isn't good at." Lever is about closing authority, not skill. |
| Re-scope | Redirect the ask toward what the advisor can actually deliver given the lane + lever constraints. | Not saying no. Not exiting. Re-scope preserves the relationship while reshaping the work. |
Event Types (Tracked in Review Log)
The Review Log in every scope-check doc uses these locked event types. Each has a specific meaning and triggers specific Mode 3 updates.
| Event Type | When Logged | Review Log Entry Structure |
|---|---|---|
| CREATED | When Mode 1 generates the doc | Date + "Initial scope-check created. [Summary of initial state.]" |
| HELD | When scope was held successfully | Date + "HELD — [specific ask that came in] — [scripted response that worked]" |
| MISSED | When an out-of-scope ask was absorbed and bleed started | Date + "MISSED — [specific ask] — [hours or dollar bleed added]" |
| EXPANDED | When scope was formally expanded via change order | Date + "EXPANDED — [new in-scope items] — [change order reference]" |
| CAP HIT | When a favor reached its cap | Date + "CAP HIT — [favor description] — [next action taken]" |
| REVIEWED | Monthly or engagement-review pass, even with no other event | Date + "REVIEWED — [brief summary or 'no change this period']" |
Visual / Format States
| State | Visual Treatment | What It Means |
|---|---|---|
| ACTIVE BLEED | Status flag at top of doc, bold capitals | Current unbilled out-of-scope work exceeding a reasonable favor threshold. Requires a wind-down conversation before the next update. |
| HELD | Inline note in Review Log | Scope was held successfully; scripted response worked; no new work was absorbed. |
| CAP HIT | Inline note in Cap Tracking | A favor reached its cap; next conversation is required. |
| EXPANDED | Inline note in Review Log; "What's In Scope" section updated | A scope expansion was formalized via change order. |
| STABLE | No status flag | No active bleed, no recent held-or-missed events of note. Default state for a well-managed engagement. |
Status flags at the top of the doc are optional for STABLE engagements. They are recommended for ACTIVE BLEED.
Voice Requirements for Scripted Responses
The kit generates scripted response starters. Their voice requirements are non-negotiable because templates that sound wrong produce robo-boundaries that the advisor won't use.
- Direct. No softening prelude. Say what's true. "I want to be honest" is acceptable; "I just wanted to reach out and say" is not.
- Warm. The relationship matters. Not cold, not transactional. "Happy to take a quick look" works; "Pursuant to our agreement" does not.
- Concrete. Name the specific thing. "This [specific vendor / project / problem] situation" not "this matter."
- Time-bounded when applicable. If accepting a favor, the cap is in the message — stated explicitly, not implied. "I can give you 30 minutes on this" is in scope for the voice; "I'll see what I can do" is not.
- No emoji. No exclamation points used as politeness markers ("Thanks!"). Periods are fine. The voice is professional warmth, not cheerful deflection.
- No corporate hedging. "Per our earlier discussion" / "circle back" / "align on" / "touch base" are forbidden.
- No therapy language. "Healthy boundaries" / "self-care" / "protect my energy" — none of it. See forbidden terms below.
- Adjustable. The scripted response is a starter. The advisor must always be able to tune for the specific relationship without the underlying logic breaking. Scripted responses should read as skeletons that hold up in the advisor's voice.
Forbidden Terms
Terms that must never appear in a generated scope-check doc or scripted response — because they introduce ambiguity, moralize, or create the exact framing problems the kit exists to avoid.
| Forbidden Term | Why Forbidden | Use Instead |
|---|---|---|
| "Boundaries" (as a noun in the therapeutic sense — "healthy boundaries," "your boundaries matter," "boundary work") | Therapy-industrial language. Creates emotional weight around what is a contractual question. The word "boundary" is acceptable when used structurally ("the boundary between in-scope and out-of-scope") but not as a therapeutic object. | "Scope" |
| "Toxic client" | Moralizing. Whether a client is toxic is irrelevant; whether the work is in scope is the question. | "Client whose pattern is [specific behavior]" or just name the structural issue |
| "Saying no" | Frames the advisor as refusing. The correct frame is defining what's in scope. | "Declining the ask" or "re-scoping toward [X]" |
| "People-pleaser" | Diagnostic language that shifts the conversation from structural scope to personality critique. | Stay structural — name the pattern, not the person |
| "Protect your time" | Vague and moralizing. Scope protects itself when defined; time doesn't need protecting as a separate abstraction. | "Stay in scope" |
| "Just say no" | Simplifies a structural problem into a behavioral demand. The kit exists precisely because "just saying no" doesn't work. | Use the 2x2 matrix to determine the actual right response |
| "They're taking advantage of you" | Assigns intent. Clients aren't usually malicious; the scope definition is just missing. | Stay structural: "The scope wasn't defined, so the ask fell into an ambiguous zone" |
| "Stop being a doormat" | Tone violation. Out of character for any advisor-facing doc. | Don't appear in output |
| "Learn to delegate" | Not the pattern being solved. Scope discipline is about what the advisor accepts, not what the advisor dispatches. | Don't appear in output |
| "Set healthy boundaries" | Therapy language + redundant with existing kit vocabulary. | "Define scope" or "decline the ask" |
| "Firm but kind" / "Kind but firm" | Tone-moralizing. The kit produces structural scaffolding; how the advisor shows up is their call. | Don't appear in output |
| "Energy vampire" | Moralizing + clinical. | Don't appear in output |
| "Self-care" / "Protect your energy" | Therapy-industrial. | "Stay in scope" or "decline the ask" |
| "Pursuant to our agreement" | Corporate-legalese. Cold for a relationship doc. | "What we scoped" or "what's in the SOW" |
| "Circle back" / "Touch base" / "Align on" | Corporate-speak; degrades the voice. | "Follow up" / "Talk" / "Agree on" |
| "At the end of the day" | Filler phrase; weakens the directness requirement. | Cut it. |
| "Going forward" | Filler phrase with no content. | Cut it; use a specific date or condition if timeframe is meant. |
| "ROI of our engagement" | Framing that makes the advisor sound like they're justifying their existence. | "What we scoped" or "the advisory work we've contracted" |
Decision Matrix Terms (Locked)
Used in the 2x2 decision matrix per file 01:
- Lane: Yes / Lane: No — Did the ask fall within the firm's service lines?
- Lever: Yes / Lever: No — Does the advisor have the closing authority / action to produce the outcome?
- ACCEPT / RE-SCOPE / HAND OFF / DECLINE / STRUCTURED FAVOR — The five branch paths. Always one of these five; never "figure it out."
These are canonical. Variations that mean the same thing — "accept the ask," "take it on," "go ahead" — should be replaced with the canonical term "ACCEPT" in generated output. Same for the other four.
Shared Vocabulary (From Other Vault Kits)
Terms this kit uses that are defined elsewhere — do not redefine:
| Term | Source Kit | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Constraint | CPM | A gap between the client's goal and their current behavior/capability |
| C3 (Scope Discipline Deficit) | CPM | The behavioral constraint this kit's output primarily addresses |
| Engagement | Master plan / Project plan | A client's contracted advisory relationship (distinct from individual projects within it) |
| SOW (Statement of Work) | Universal | The signed scope agreement |
| Change order | Universal | Formal addition to the SOW |
| GPS | Master plan / CPM | Position / Direction / Speed read of the client at a given time |
When any of these terms appear in a scope-check doc or scripted response, they carry the meaning defined in their source kit. Do not redefine them here.