WuWei Logic distinguishes client work, authorised anonymised work, illustrative deliverables and public-source analysis. Demonstrations are not presented as client results.
| Publication label | What the reader should understand |
|---|---|
| Client case | Real work, published with written permission and fact review. Permission covers the material actually shown; it is not independent validation of every claim. |
| Authorised anonymised case | Real work published with permission but without identifying the client. Remove indirect identifiers as well as the name, and do not invent missing details. |
| Illustrative deliverable | A template or demonstration. Not client work. Fictional assumptions and sample dates must be visible. |
| Public-source analysis | Analysis of named public material, with sources and limits. Not a client relationship, partnership or endorsement. |
The three samples below follow one fictional industrial service team offering planned pump maintenance. No real client, testimonial or outcome statistic is represented. The sample address https://example.com/pump-maintenance/ is an illustrative URL, not a live case or supporting source.
Read evidence status separately from statement type
| Label | What it means |
|---|---|
| Client-confirmed | A responsible client representative has confirmed the statement and its scope. Record who, when and on what basis. This is an attributed confirmation, not independent verification. |
| Source-supported | An identified source supports this particular statement within its stated scope and date. Check the original material, relevance and limitations; a source can be incomplete or wrong. |
| Pending verification | The statement lacks sufficient confirmation or supporting evidence, or sources conflict. Keep it out of public claims until resolved, or describe the uncertainty explicitly. |
| Interpretation | A professional reading of evidence, not a fact. Identify the evidence and explain the reasoning and limitations. |
| Hypothesis | An idea to test, not a fact or a promised outcome. State what observation would support or challenge it. |
| Open question | A specific gap that still needs an answer. Assign a responsible person and a next review point. |
Confirmation and source support can coexist. Keep evidence status separate from statement type: an interpretation or hypothesis does not become a fact when someone approves it. Approval is not proof of truth; permission to publish is a separate decision.
Illustrative deliverable – Fact Map
Fictional illustrative sample. This pump maintenance scenario, its documents, people, confirmations and dates are invented to explain the deliverable. They are not real client evidence or measured results.
Use one row per claim so that a reviewer can see precisely what is supported, what needs confirmation and what may be published. In this sample, internal documents are fictional descriptions, not links to evidence that actually exists.
| Claim or statement | Supporting source | Responsible person | Last reviewed (fictional) | Evidence status / statement type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The pump maintenance offer covers scheduled inspection visits, not emergency call-outs. | Service scope note v1, section 2: planned visits only (fictional). | Operations lead | 2026-10-20 (scenario date) | Client-confirmed + Source-supported within the fictional scenario; scoped service statement. |
| Visits include a written observation summary for the customer. | Service scope note v1, section 3: visit summary included (fictional). | Service lead | 2026-10-20 (scenario date) | Source-supported within the fictional scenario; service statement awaiting current owner confirmation. |
| Every site can be visited within two working days. | No scheduling record or service commitment supplied in the scenario. | Operations lead | 2026-10-20 (scenario date) | Pending verification; do not publish the availability claim. |
| The emergency wording could lead a buyer to expect urgent cover. | Comparison of the fictional draft with the fictional scope note. | Content reviewer | 2026-10-20 (scenario date) | Interpretation; a reading of the wording, not an observed buyer response. |
| Stating exclusions near the answer may reduce unsuitable enquiries. | No outcome evidence; a proposed change to examine in later enquiry notes. | Sales & operations | 2026-10-20 (scenario date) | Hypothesis; not a claim of improvement. |
| Which locations are currently within the planned visit area? | An up-to-date coverage list is missing from the fictional materials. | Service coordinator | 2026-10-20 (scenario date) | Open question / Pending verification; request the current coverage list. |
Publication decision in the scenario: use the narrow planned-service description after owner review; withhold the two-day availability statement. Keep the hypothesis in the review record, not in customer-facing proof.
Illustrative deliverable – B2B Decision Page Structure
Fictional illustrative sample. This pump maintenance scenario, its documents, people, confirmations and dates are invented to explain the deliverable. They are not real client evidence or measured results.
This filled brief shows the answers a reader would receive. It is not a claim that WuWei provides pump maintenance or that the fictional offer has produced results.
| Field | Filled sample |
|---|---|
| Buyer question | Can this team support a planned pump maintenance visit during our next shutdown? |
| Official answer (fictional) | The service is for planned inspection visits. Share the equipment details, site location and proposed shutdown window so the team can assess fit. A visit date is agreed after review; urgent attendance is not included. |
| Relevant application or service context | A facilities team planning a shutdown for an existing pump installation, rather than seeking emergency fault response. |
| Evidence and source material | Service scope note v1, sections 2 and 3 (fictional): planned visits and a written observation summary. This illustrates source mapping, not public evidence of delivery. |
| Limits or fit conditions | No emergency call-outs. Equipment suitability, coverage and availability still need confirmation. No two-day response or guaranteed repair claim. |
| Responsible person | Service lead: reviews equipment fit. Operations lead: confirms scope and scheduling. These are fictional roles. |
| Next step | For this fictional offer, provide the pump model, location and preferred shutdown window for a fit review. Do not send information to the sample URL. |
The page would link to genuine, publishable evidence if it existed. Until then, a description of the service boundary is more honest than an invented case study or a customer logo.
Illustrative deliverable – Change and Review Log
Fictional illustrative sample. This pump maintenance scenario, its documents, people, confirmations and dates are invented to explain the deliverable. They are not real client evidence or measured results.
| Field | Filled sample |
|---|---|
| Page or asset | Planned pump maintenance page: https://example.com/pump-maintenance/ (illustrative address only). |
| What changed | Replaced "emergency response" with "planned inspection visits" and placed the urgent-call-out exclusion beside the service answer. |
| Why it changed | The original wording went beyond the fictional service scope and could create an unsupported expectation. |
| Supporting source | Service scope note v1, section 2 (fictional): planned visits only. Fact-map row for the service boundary. |
| Approved by | Operations lead (fictional): wording approved for the scenario. Approval is not proof of truth or independent verification. |
| Date changed | 2026-10-21 (fictional scenario date, not a live-site change). |
| Review observation | The revised sample states the service boundary. No buyer-response, indexing, ranking or revenue effect has been measured. |
| Next review date | 2026-11-04 (fictional planned review), or sooner if the service scope changes. |
| Next review question | Does the current scope still match the wording? Are enquiries asking for emergency cover? Record observations before drawing conclusions. |
A completed change record documents an edit and its basis. It does not demonstrate that the edit improved performance. Leave any later outcome claim unmade until there is evidence to examine.
Permission and proof policy
Client cases are published only with written permission and fact review. Check the proposed wording, sources, identifying details and permission scope before publication. Where evidence is unavailable or cannot be shared, say so rather than substituting an illustration for proof.
These editorial principles are not legal advice. Questions about rights, confidentiality or contractual obligations need qualified review.
Continue exploring
A Foundation Sprint starts with an agreed scope, responsibilities and review points. Bring the page or buyer question that is hardest to explain today.