What vendor scope can the owner approve?
Ridgewell Services is renewing a document service. It can keep core rendering or add batch export.
The question
The service owner may approve a scope only with a current recovery record and one working day of fallback capacity. The provider dashboard says a restore exercise was completed.
| Requests per working day | |
|---|---|
| Core rendering only | 35 |
| Rendering and batch export | 100 |
| Manual fallback capacity | 45 |
The same manual team provides fallback for either option.
“Recommend what can proceed and name the missing evidence.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: What evidence do you ask for?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Ask for the date, scope and recovery results
The strong move. Each is needed to judge whether the record covers the intended use.
Accept the completion entry for both workflows
Tempting, but it misses something. It does not say which workflows recovered.
Ask for the date only
Tempting, but it misses something. A recent date does not establish what the test covered.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would ask for the exercise date, which workflows and dependencies it covered, and the recovery result for each.”
Why it works: A completion entry gives no recovery result for a specific workflow.
Step 2: What can fallback handle?
The test record shows a current core rendering restore. The export row has no recovery result.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Extend broad use because the 45 places cover core rendering
Tempting, but it misses something. Broad use brings demand to 100, which exceeds fallback capacity.
Keep the core-only option open and check export separately
The strong move. The restricted load fits and has a current recovery result.
Reject core rendering because the export row is empty
Tempting, but it misses something. The record confirms that core rendering recovered.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Core-only use fits with capacity for 10 more requests. Broad use would leave 55 without fallback in a working day. I would check what happened to export in the exercise.”
Why it works: The capacity test and the recovery evidence are separate parts of the case policy.
Step 3: What scope would you recommend?
A signed appendix confirms that a subcontractor runs batch export and the restore exercise excluded it. Core rendering operates without that dependency.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Approve batch export because the main provider completed a test
Tempting, but it misses something. The exercise did not cover the subcontractor that runs export.
Hold both workflows because one dependency is outside the test
Tempting, but it misses something. Core rendering can operate without that dependency and meets the two conditions.
Recommend core rendering only and record what export still needs
The strong move. This limits use to the scope supported by the record and fallback capacity.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would recommend core rendering only. It can work without batch export. The export scope needs its own current recovery record and a plan for the 55-request fallback gap.”
Why it works: The appendix confirms which dependency the exercise excluded. Core rendering meets both of the supplied approval conditions.
Step 4: Who decides what proceeds?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Give the internal service owner the covered scope and ask the vendor for export evidence
The strong move. This gives the decision to its owner and puts the evidence request with the provider.
Ask the vendor to approve the expansion
Tempting, but it misses something. The fictional policy assigns approval to the internal service owner.
Add export as soon as the provider sends a test record
Tempting, but it misses something. The fallback gap still needs a response.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would give the internal service owner the core-only case and ask the vendor service owner for the export recovery record. I would keep the export expansion open for an internal decision once both gaps are addressed.”
Why it works: The vendor supplies evidence. The internal service owner decides the scope.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Recommend core rendering only and ask for separate export recovery evidence.
- Because
- The core-only load of 35 fits a fallback capacity of 45. The broad load of 100 leaves 55 requests without fallback.
- What would change it
- A current export recovery result and enough fallback capacity for the broad scope would support a new decision.
Common traps
- Check each workflow against the same policy.
- Keep the evidence request separate from approval.
Check your answer
- I asked for test scope.
- I checked daily fallback.
- I traced the dependency.
- I named the approval owner.
Last reviewed Nov 11, 2026