# Worked fictional handoff example
**Illustration only. Source records here are metadata statements, not actual invoices, bank records or client communications.**

## Case FIC-001 — partial submission, blocked
- The agreed request for *Demo Client A*, 2026-09, contains **three** expected types in `fictional_items.csv`.
- `bank_statement`: `ADMIN_ACCEPTED`, source `SYN-001`; the manifest states a visible span of **2026-09-01..2026-09-30**. Staff has checked type/period only.
- `card_statement`: `NEEDS_REPLACEMENT`, source `SYN-002`; manifest explicitly states **2026-09-01..2026-09-19**. The missing date span is **Sep 20–30**.
- `supplier_invoice_index`: `REQUESTED`; evidence reference blank. No receipt is recorded in the synthetic data.
- Therefore `fictional_case_summary.csv` says **BLOCKED**, not ready for reviewer.
- Next responsible role: **Intake coordinator**, next review date **2026-10-05** (fictional demonstration date).
- `EVT-003` records a **draft-only, not sent** follow-up asking for Sep 20–30 coverage and the supplier index. No outgoing communication occurred.
- The qualified reviewer **has not** checked whether numbers are accurate or documents sufficient for accounting work.

## Case FIC-002 — administratively ready, professional review outstanding
- The three requested items map to `SYN-003` (bank), `SYN-004` (supplier index), and `SYN-007` (sales index); all three rows read `ADMIN_ACCEPTED`.
- As **no item** has unresolved scope or administrative exceptions, status is `READY_FOR_REVIEW`.
- `EVT-005` records a simulated internal handoff to **Reviewer B** only. It is **not** approval, booking, tax filing, or client advice.

## Case FIC-003 — wrong period
- `SYN-005` shows **August 2026**, while September 2026 was requested. The item is `NEEDS_REPLACEMENT`.
- Supplier index has no source ID: `REQUESTED`. Status = **BLOCKED**.
- `EVT-006` is a replacement-request draft, **not sent**.

## Case FIC-004 — ambiguous professional scope
- Bank statement `SYN-008` was administratively accepted.
- Unclassified note `SYN-006` does not establish whether it is required for the engagement. Its row is `SPECIALIST_SCOPE_REVIEW`.
- Status = **SCOPE_REVIEW** (takes precedence over other conditions); the case is routed to **Reviewer D** for a scope decision only.

## How to reproduce the example
1. Open `fictional_items.csv` and filter by `case_id`.
2. Follow any non-empty `evidence_id` to `fictional_evidence_manifest.csv`.
3. Compare facts (especially the visible period) against the `admin_note` and `item_status`.
4. Apply the precedence rules in `DATA_DICTIONARY.md`.
5. Compare with `fictional_case_summary.csv`, then examine the event IDs in `fictional_action_log.csv`.

No source PDF has been provided: the example is intentionally **metadata-only** to avoid pretending these are real client documents.