SERVICE-OPTION FIT WORKSHEET
Companion: Help buyers compare two service options by what they need

Use facts to explain which service fits a buyer's current task. This does not
create a pricing table, checkout or recommendation feature. It does not establish
CFAI product access, demand, a purchase or a customer result.

1. DEFINE THE DECISION

Business / intended product / exact planned page:
Audience:
Task the buyer is trying to finish:
Two real service names:
Current service-fact source / date / owner:
What changes the choice between them?:
What would make both unsuitable?:
Unresolved scope / fee / availability / timing facts:
Person authorized to answer those questions:

2. COPY THIS ROW FOR EVERY COMPARISON QUESTION

Row ID:
Question the buyer needs answered:
Option A's exact answer:
Option B's exact answer:
Fact source / date / owner for A:
Fact source / date / owner for B:
Important condition or exclusion:
Status: DRAFT / FACTS CONFIRMED / UNRESOLVED
Question to resolve / responsible person:

Suggested rows:
- Required starting material
- Work supplied by the service
- Concrete deliverable and quantity, if applicable
- Work the buyer still does
- Exclusions
- Actual price/fee basis and conditions, when established
- Availability and delivery agreement, when established
- Next action and what it commits the buyer to

Use the same row questions for both options. Do not treat an empty price as free,
an unknown date as immediate or an assumed preference as proven popularity.

3. FICTIONAL SERVICE RECORDS — NORTHLINE TALK STUDIO

All names, scope and situations are invented. These are planning assumptions,
not live services, benchmarks, pricing advice, customer outcomes or CFAI features.

OPTION A: OUTLINE REVIEW
Bring: An existing outline of up to six sections.
Studio work: Read the outline and identify unclear points or gaps.
Receive: One written feedback document.
Buyer work: Revise the outline and write the talk.
Excluded: Rewriting the outline, research, slides, rehearsal and video editing.
Next step: Enquire about the outline review.
Possible action wording: Ask about an outline review.
Fee and delivery date: Not established in this exercise; resolve in actual use.
Real service-fact check: NOT RUN
Real enquiry journey: NOT RUN

OPTION B: OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT
Bring: Notes, a topic and an intended audience.
Studio work: Arrange the supplied material into an outline of up to six sections.
Receive: One draft outline and one revision based on a consolidated response.
Buyer work: Check the outline, supply missing facts and write the talk.
Excluded: Research, slides, rehearsal and video editing.
Next step: Enquire about outline development.
Possible action wording: Ask about outline development.
Fee and delivery date: Not established in this exercise; resolve in actual use.
Real service-fact check: NOT RUN
Real enquiry journey: NOT RUN

Neither option includes a finished script or promises an audience reaction.
Both rely on accurate buyer-supplied material. A bigger scope is not always the
better fit. No checkout, booking, agreement or delivery has occurred here.

4. FOUR FICTIONAL BUYER DECISIONS

C01 — SAM
Starting point: Five-section outline; Sam will do the rewriting.
Missing task: Identify unclear points and gaps.
Scope decision: Outline review fits the stated need.
Reason: Existing outline plus feedback request; rewriting stays with Sam.
Next question: Is anything beyond the written review required?
Actual buyer decision/purchase/result: NOT RUN

C02 — LEE
Starting point: Notes, community-project topic and intended audience; no outline.
Missing task: Arrange the material before writing the talk.
Scope decision: Outline development is the closer scope match.
Reason: The draft outline is the missing deliverable.
Next question: Can Lee supply facts and a consolidated response for the revision?
Actual buyer decision/purchase/result: NOT RUN

C03 — NOOR
Starting point: Recorded talk.
Missing task: Video editing.
Scope decision: Neither option covers video editing.
Reason: Explicitly excluded by both services.
Next step: State the no-fit result; do not invent a referral.
Actual buyer decision/purchase/result: NOT RUN

C04 — ALEX
Starting point: Upcoming event; a delivery date is essential.
Missing fact: Actual availability and agreed delivery date.
Scope decision: Clarify before choosing.
Reason: Scope match alone cannot answer a required timing condition.
Next question: Can the responsible person agree the work for the required date?
Actual buyer decision/purchase/result: NOT RUN

5. YOUR BUYER CASE — REPEAT WITH A DIFFERENT STARTING POINT

Case ID (use fictional/non-identifying details for the exercise):
Starting point:
Missing task:
Essential condition:
Facts used from the comparison:
Scope decision: A / B / NEITHER / CLARIFY
Reason in one sentence:
Question still unresolved:
Next action / owner:
Actual observation, if any, separately dated (otherwise NOT RUN):

6. COPY AND LAYOUT HANDOFF

Exact intended page / version:
Option names explain the work?:
Every answer remains attached to its question and option?:
Same questions/order for stacked cards?:
For a data table, intended header/data relationships:
Exclusions remain visible in the narrow layout?:
Actual implementation check: NOT RUN
Actual next-action destination/commitment check: NOT RUN
Evidence / reviewer / date:

Proposed option A action wording and destination:
Proposed option B action wording and destination:
Does each action mean enquiry, purchase, booking or something else?:
Who answers a scope/price/timing question?:
What other copy needs changing when a service fact changes?:

7. BEFORE APPROVING THE COMPARISON

[ ] Each row describes real scope and has a fact owner.
[ ] Starting materials and buyer responsibilities are visible.
[ ] Fees/timing are accurate or explicitly unresolved; no hidden assumptions.
[ ] Both a no-fit and clarification case have been considered.
[ ] No invented “most popular,” savings, demand or outcome claim.
[ ] Labels identify work rather than rank buyers as basic or premium.
[ ] Table/card relationships and exclusions survive the actual layout.
[ ] The next action matches its real commitment.
[ ] Unperformed checks remain NOT RUN.

Primary implementation reference:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/tables/