Skip to main content
Goal: the proof moments — the same broad question under two personas, the off-scope decline traced to a readable file, and a behavior change made through governance.
Setup: your two Module 4 personas approved and provisioned to two test identities (or two sessions an admin can switch — Module 6 covers assignment mechanics). Have both sessions open side by side.

​
5.1 · The side-by-side

Ask the identical broad question in both sessions:
Prompt
You’ll see: Ana recognizes the breadth and clarifies with a menu of allowed options only (“through care gaps, utilization, or outreach — which would help most?”). After you pick: plain language, summary first, no SQL anywhere, sources described in business terms.
You’ll see: Ana proceeds with stated assumptions (“assuming utilization means admissions + ED visits over the trailing 12 months…”), answers in full technical detail, shows the SQL with a clause-by-clause explanation, and flags anything computed beyond the governed surfaces.
Same organization, same ontology, same question — two correct experiences. Capture both screens; this side-by-side is the single best artifact for explaining the context stack to anyone who wasn’t in the room.

​
5.2 · The off-scope decline — and the file behind it

In the restricted session, ask for something real but outside the allowlist:
Prompt
You’ll see: a warm decline with a redirect — “that falls outside this workspace; contact [the analytics team]. Within this workspace I can help with…” — and no hint of what other surfaces exist.
Now the trust moment. Open behaviors/[program_manager]/org_context.md and read section 4 aloud next to the decline you just received. The behavior you witnessed is a sentence in a version-controlled file — not a vibe, not a model mood. It’s reviewable, diffable, auditable: when compliance asks “what stops a program manager from seeing financials?”, the answer is a file, its review history, and the enforcement layers beneath it.

​
5.3 · Change behavior through governance

The program-management team now legitimately needs [readmission detail]. Wrong move: someone edits the file directly and behavior drifts. Right move:
  • Propose the patch: add [readmissions_detail] to the persona’s allowed-surfaces list — one line — with a description citing who requested it and why.- Review and approve (the metric’s or domain’s owner signs off, per your Module 3 review bar).- Re-ask in the restricted session — the previously declined question about readmission detail now answers, in the persona’s plain-language style.
You’ll see: behavior change with a paper trail — who requested it, who approved it, when, and exactly what changed. Compare that against the alternative (“an admin toggled something in a console six months ago, nobody remembers why”) and you have the whole argument for context-as-files.

​
5.4 · Write the test down

The same-question test isn’t just a demo — it’s your regression suite for personas. Record the three probes (the broad question, the off-scope request, the newly-allowed request) and their expected behaviors; re-run them whenever a persona file changes. Module 7 makes this a quarterly habit.
Same question, two personas — scope and voice differ, the governed truth does not.

Same question, two personas — scope and voice differ, the governed truth does not.

The off-scope decline — access control you can read.

The off-scope decline — access control you can read.

​
✅ Checkpoint

  • The same broad question produced clarify-vs-proceed, no-SQL-vs-SQL, summary-vs-assumptions — captured side by side
  • The off-scope decline matched section 4 of the persona file, word for behavior
  • The allowlist change went through propose → review → approve, and the re-ask confirmed it
  • The three-probe test is written down as the persona’s regression suite