Separate referral state from service state
Synthetic partner P closes referral REF-7 because its referral work is complete. Charity case CASE-9, linked to REF-7, still awaits the participant’s workshop attendance. The local rule gives P ownership of referral status and the charity ownership of service outcome. Closing REF-7 does not supply attendance for CASE-9.
| Constraint | Required record | Example decision rule |
|---|---|---|
| Reference scope | Partner ID + referral ID | P/REF-7 links CASE-9 |
| Status owner | Partner referral status; local outcome | Do not write referral closure into service completion |
| Outcome evidence | Workshop attendance or disposition | Still absent for CASE-9 |
Test a closed referral with open local work
| Case | Input | Expected decision |
|---|---|---|
| REF-7 closes | Partner completed referral | CASE-9 stays open |
| CASE-9 attendance arrives | Local verified attendance | Update service outcome |
- Match partner referral to local case
- Classify the incoming status owner
- Update that side only
- Keep local outcome evidence separate
An unmatched partner reference needs review; a similar participant name cannot replace the case link.
Can CASE-9 close as attended merely because REF-7 is closed?
Show the worked answer
No. Partner closure proves only the referral milestone. CASE-9 still needs its own service outcome.
Include both status owners in the field map so a shared “closed” label cannot erase the distinction.