Work around one damp and mould case cohort, one named owner, and one review ritual for clock, evidence, privacy, and pack-readiness questions.
Five-minute walkthrough
- Start with a damp or mould report Import or create the case with awareness time, route, tenant contact, and source-system reference.
- Statutory clock triage See investigation, written-summary, safety-work, and emergency-response milestones with source-cited limits.
- Evidence gap chase Pull in inbox records, contractor updates, no-access notes, proof links, and outstanding evidence actions.
- Review-ready evidence pack Generate a conservative pack with citations, custody steps, gaps, review status, and unsigned integrity evidence.
- Privacy and redaction review Prepare redaction markers, DSR inventory, disclosure-bundle manifests, and outcome evidence for controller/DPO review.
14-day pilot promise
In 14 days, the pilot should give repairs, compliance, procurement, and information-governance reviewers a shared buyer readout: what evidence exists, what remains missing, what can be reviewed safely, and what would block a paid rollout decision.
Use sample data, CSV exports, shared inbox examples, source-system references, and named reviewer roles before any production tenant file import.
Produce a clock-risk snapshot, evidence-gap register, proof-link plan, review-ready pack sample, and buyer readout for the pilot review meeting.
Production legal advice, compliance certification, live tenant messaging without controller approval, and fabricated outcome claims are excluded.
The pricing path is explicit: pricing starts from the pilot plan, then moves to provider or group packaging only after agreed rollout criteria.
Success means the buyer can name the first cohort, owner, evidence sources, go/no-go blockers, and next paid rollout decision without treating the pilot as a compliance guarantee.
Buyer readout format
| Readout area | Buyer question | Success signal |
|---|---|---|
| Workflow fit | Can the pilot follow the case across repairs, inbox, and review owners? | Named source systems, owner, reviewer, and first import/mapping route. |
| Evidence value | Can the team see gaps and reviewer-ready pack limits quickly? | Clock-risk snapshot, gap register, and sample pack reviewed together. |
| Commercial next step | Can procurement and IG decide whether a paid rollout is worth scoping? | Go/no-go blockers, pricing path, data approvals, and rollout owner named. |
The pilot promise is operational proof for a narrow cohort, not legal advice, not a compliance guarantee, and not a promise of regulator, Ombudsman, or court outcomes.
EvidenceOS workflow console
A compact synthetic view of the moment a buyer cares about: whether the case is clocked, evidenced, reviewable, and still honest about what remains missing.
Clock risk
Source-cited milestoneAwareness time is linked to the first report; the investigation clock is visible with statutory source references and a human-review warning.
Evidence chase
Missing proof, namedContractor photo, tenant contact attempt, and no-access note are tracked as separate evidence gaps rather than hidden inside a generic task list.
Pack review
Facts separated from limitsThe pack can show source register, custody steps, audit events, redaction status, and unresolved gaps without claiming the landlord is compliant.
Privacy gate
Controller review firstDisclosure bundles, DSR inventory, and redaction outcomes remain review evidence. Customer-approved proof required before production claims.
DEMO-001 guided evidence readout
Deterministic sample case, not customer data. The readout fixes the same case, same timestamps, and same evidence gaps on every demo so buyers can judge the workflow rather than a changing story.
Tenant damp and mould report logged on 27 October 2025 at 09:00.
Potential significant route; investigation and written-summary milestones visible.
Missing contractor photo, tenant contact attempt, and no-access note separated.
Zero-login proof link asks for scoped tenant or contractor evidence only.
Review-ready pack shows sources, custody trail, unresolved gaps, and limitations.
| Demo moment | What the buyer sees | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Minute 3 | Awareness timestamp, route, source reference, and fixed case summary. | Confirms the clock story starts from visible source evidence. |
| Minute 7 | Evidence gaps split by tenant, contractor, repairs, and complaint source. | Shows the product chases missing proof without hiding uncertainty. |
| Minute 12 | First value by minute 12: one reviewable pack readout with named gaps. | Lets the buyer assess pilot usefulness before deeper integrations. |
This deterministic readout is product evidence for a synthetic fixture, not legal advice, not a customer outcome, and not a compliance guarantee.
Demo reset and readiness evidence
The operator demo can be reset to the same synthetic dataset, then checked for the `DEMO-001` aha case before a buyer walkthrough. This keeps the script, dataset, and public readout aligned.
POST /operator/demo/dataset/reset
GET /operator/demo/readiness
2026-06-06_DAY_07_GUIDED_DEMO_STORYBOARD.md
These operator endpoints require authorised access. The public page documents the demo evidence shape without exposing tenant or customer records.
Synthetic scenario evidence matrix
Synthetic case: DEMO-001. This is a product walkthrough fixture for buyer review, not a customer story, not production data, and not evidence that any landlord has achieved a particular outcome.
No customer name, logo, testimonial, usage statistic, or outcome claim is implied.
| Evidence question | What the demo can show | Current proof status |
|---|---|---|
| Can the team see the Awaab's Law clock basis? | Awareness time, route, milestone names, official source links, and conservative limitation text in one review surface. | Synthetic fixture plus source-cited product behaviour. |
| Can missing evidence be chased without tenant logins? | Proof-link intake, inbox matching, contractor evidence, no-access notes, and gap status shown as separate evidence sources. | Prototype workflow evidence; delivery provider is not live. |
| Can a pack separate facts from review limits? | Pack narrative, source register, custody steps, redaction markers, review status, pack hash, and unresolved evidence gaps. | Operational pack evidence, not solicitor-grade filing. |
| Can privacy reviewers see what remains blocked? | DSR inventory, disclosure-bundle manifest, lifecycle policy blockers, and privacy outcome logs without exposing raw PII in public materials. | Internal DPO/controller review evidence, not legal-approved SAR tooling. |
What the demo is trying to prove
For repairs operations
The demo shows a single view of clocks, risk route, appointments, contractor progress, no-access attempts, and unresolved evidence gaps.
For compliance and legal review
The pack narrative separates facts, statutory source references, evidence gaps, tenant communications, review status, and explicit limitations.
For information governance
Privacy review stays deliberate: raw personal data is not placed in public reports, redaction actions are audited, and disclosure manifests are review evidence rather than automated SAR decisions.
Best-fit pilot shape
- One damp and mould case cohort with repairs, complaints, inbox, and contractor evidence.
- One named operational owner and one information-governance reviewer.
- One evidence-pack review ritual before complaints, Ombudsman, or legal escalation.
- One procurement review path through trust, pricing, DPIA/DPA input, and launch gaps.