Hemory TeamOn this page
A customer says scheduled reports were always part of the request. Your proposal describes a manual export. Before replying, you need to understand both the customer’s need and what your team agreed to deliver.
Keep those questions separate. Recover the relevant exchanges, compare them with the accepted scope, and prepare a response that states what is established and what still needs a decision. The aim is a useful clarification, not to prove whose memory is better.
Name the discrepancy before searching
Write down the two statements without treating either as the whole answer:
- The customer recalls asking for scheduled reports.
- The current accepted proposal includes a manual export.
These statements are not necessarily contradictory. A customer may have expressed a need before the supplier accepted delivery. The request may concern a different audience or phase. A later scope decision may also exist outside the material you first opened.
Identify what your reply must resolve: the current need, whether it is already included, and the decision needed if it is not. If you need a full account of how a requirement evolved, use tracing requirement changes across meetings. This guide focuses on resolving the discrepancy in the customer conversation.
Recover the request and the response together
Start with the proposal, call note, email or discussion record most likely to explain the gap. A complete written confirmation may already answer it.
For discussions captured in Hemory, built-in Q&A can retrieve across conversations:
What did this customer ask for about manual exports and scheduled reports? Find the audiences, timing needs and our responses. Separate a customer requirement from an agreement to assess or deliver it.
Read the relevant exchange where the response changes the conclusion. “We will assess scheduling” preserves a real undertaking, but it does not establish that scheduled delivery was accepted. Equally, finding only the manual-export agreement does not prove the customer never raised scheduling elsewhere.
Hemory preserves these distinctions while you concentrate on understanding the customer. Later, the qualification that did not reach your short account note can help you prepare a more precise reply without asking the customer to repeat the history.
Example: the need is established, delivery still needs a decision
This fictional case illustrates scope clarification; it is not a customer case or Hemory output. The available records contain:
| Source | What it establishes |
|---|---|
| Discovery call | Operations requests a manual CSV export for analysts |
| Regional review | Regional managers need scheduled reports before their Monday review; analysts still need manual export |
| Scope discussion | The customer lead confirms both needs; the supplier agrees to assess scheduling feasibility |
| Current accepted scope | Manual CSV export is included; delivery of scheduled reports awaits a decision |
The reviewed records establish the scheduled-report need, alongside the analyst export. They do not settle whether scheduling was mentioned before the discovery call, or commit the supplier to delivering it.
A working clarification note could read:
Customer need: Manual CSV export for analysts and scheduled reports
before regional managers' Monday review.
Accepted scope: Manual export is included. Scheduled-report delivery
remains undecided in the current accepted scope.
Our undertaking: Assess scheduling feasibility.
Historical limit: These records do not establish whether scheduling
was discussed before the discovery call.
Next decision: Use the feasibility result to settle delivery scope
for scheduled reports.The missing origin detail does not prevent acknowledging the current need. It does prevent a categorical statement such as “you never asked for that.”
Draft a reply that moves the work forward
A customer-facing response could say:
We understand that regional managers need scheduled reports before their Monday review, while analysts still need manual CSV exports. The current accepted scope includes manual export. Our recorded undertaking on scheduling is to assess feasibility; delivery of scheduled reports still needs to be agreed. The next step is to establish the assessment result and settle that delivery decision.
This response acknowledges the requirement and preserves your team’s undertaking. It does not claim the assessment is complete, set an unsupported delivery date, or ask the customer to abandon their recollection.
If an earlier agreement is supplied, assess what it establishes and update the clarification. If it changes the current delivery position, use the team’s normal scope process to record that result. A revised understanding should reach the proposal or work record the delivery team uses.
Let an agent prepare the comparison and response
A compatible AI agent connected to Hemory can use accessible discussions while drafting. Provide the current proposal and the customer’s message if they are outside its access:
Compare the customer's recollection below with the current proposal
and accessible Hemory discussions. Keep customer needs, supplier
undertakings and accepted delivery scope separate. Identify any
missing source that could change the conclusion. Draft a neutral
clarification note and reply without claiming the customer never
asked for something or adding a delivery date.The agent can retrieve and draft before you build a complete call history. Review the claims that determine the response, especially whether an assessment became a delivery promise or a later agreement changed the scope.
For evaluating the effect of a confirmed new requirement on an offer, use reviewing a customer requirement change. That decision follows the clarification; it should not be hidden inside a sentence about what someone remembers.
FAQ
Does the proposal automatically disprove the customer’s recollection?
No. It establishes what that document records. The customer may have raised a need that was not accepted, was omitted, or was agreed elsewhere. Follow relevant evidence before drawing a wider conclusion.
Must we find the very first mention before replying?
Only if that origin affects the decision. You can acknowledge a current need and state accepted scope while keeping an unresolved historical detail explicit.
What if no usable record exists?
Ask a focused clarification and record the resulting agreement as a new source. A later account can resolve the current work without proving the exact words used earlier.
