Fictional teaching practice pack. Replace all example inputs with your own material. Keep unknowns, ownership and approval status explicit.

BLANK OUTLINE
Shared goal and decision needed:
My recommendation, evidence and possible omissions:
What the other person actually said (no inferred motives):
Facts, interpretation or priorities in dispute:
Versions, definitions, evidence locations and unknowns:
Checkable question or comparison action:
Evidence that would change my view:
Accepted tradeoffs:
Actual confirmed decision, authority and reservations:
Owner, date and time, effort and approval:
Follow-up:

FICTIONAL MATERIAL AND WORKED STATEMENT

Original fictional teaching material: the cap is CNY 20,000. Prices are A 12,000, B 18,000, and C 26,000. Simulated quality/speed/cost ratings are A: 3/5/5, B: 5/3/3, and C: 5/5/1, with higher scores better. C exceeds the cap and is excluded. There are no actual trial records and no selected supplier.

We both need an option that meets the quality requirements within budget. Could we first check the comparison? B is CNY 18,000 in this version, within the CNY 20,000 cap. If there is a revised quote or additional cost, let's update it together.

My earlier preference for A used the simulated calculation with quality at 40%, alongside speed and cost. At 60% quality, B leads; at 50%, they tie. Priorities change the ranking, and scores do not establish actual quality.

Could we confirm mandatory requirements and arrange comparable trials? I would change my recommendation if evidence showed that A fails a mandatory condition, or if we establish a higher priority for quality. Ownership, trial effort, dates, and approval need confirmation. This discussion has not selected a supplier.

Check: Can each claim be traced to evidence? Are proposals still marked pending? Does the main brief preserve conditions? Is one next action inspectable?