Scope the contact link to learner and information
Synthetic adult learning centre: learners nominate contacts for timetable updates or payment-status updates separately. Contact Jo has timetable access for L1 and payment-status access for L2. The centre has no nomination connecting Jo to L3. A shared phone number does not extend these links. This is a supplied access arrangement, not a legal relationship rule.
| Constraint | Required record | Example decision rule |
|---|---|---|
| Relationship key | Learner ID + contact ID | Separate Jo/L1 from Jo/L2 |
| Purpose scope | Timetable or payment-status permission | No permission inherited across purposes |
| Missing link | Explicit no matching nomination | L3 data is not shown to Jo |
Test the same contact across different learners
| Case | Input | Expected decision |
|---|---|---|
| Jo reads L1 timetable | Jo/L1 timetable nomination | Allowed under example |
| Jo reads L1 payment status | Timetable-only link | Not allowed |
| Jo reads L3 | No nomination | No learner details shown |
- Identify learner and contact
- Read nominated purpose
- Match requested information
- Return only permitted data
If a nomination ends, stop using that link for future access; preserve the historical record separately.
How many of Jo’s L1 timetable, L1 payment and L3 requests are allowed?
Show the worked answer
One: L1 timetable. The other two lack the required relationship and purpose combination.
Ask for a demo that switches learner and information type without switching the contact, exposing any accidental household-wide permission.