Support cannot tell which service tier a customer was promised

The problem

Order forms, CRM notes and provisioning records may disagree on an account’s current service entitlement.

Agent job

Compare approved commercial records with provisioned features and flag contradictions for account-owner resolution.

Expected output

An entitlement evidence table by product and effective date, plus a discrepancy packet; no access changes.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

The agent can connect effective-dated commercial documents, CRM notes and provisioning facts without treating any one system as infallible. Native entitlement reconciliation is better when a single authoritative service manages these states; an account owner must resolve contractual ambiguity.

Who this helps

1. Customer success manager

2. Support operations specialist

Evidence boundary

Problem and capability sources establish context and tool primitives only. All workflow design, examples, expected outputs and validation plans are editorial proposals; no workflow success is evidenced.

Setup requirements

1. One account with verified legal entity, subsidiary boundaries and relevant effective dates

2. Read-only contract, CRM and provisioning exports with customer-identifying details minimized

3. Owner-defined source precedence and a prohibition on access or billing changes

Inputs and access

1. Name

   Redacted order forms and amendments

   Source or owner

   Authorized role owner; synthetic fixtures for first test

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business records; redact personal data, credentials and unrelated content

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes processing in the selected agent environment; no broader account connection is assumed

2. Name

   CRM service-tier export

   Source or owner

   Authorized role owner; synthetic fixtures for first test

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business records; redact personal data, credentials and unrelated content

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes processing in the selected agent environment; no broader account connection is assumed

3. Name

   Read-only provisioning snapshot

   Source or owner

   Authorized role owner; synthetic fixtures for first test

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business records; redact personal data, credentials and unrelated content

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes processing in the selected agent environment; no broader account connection is assumed

Proposed steps

1. 1

   Confirm account identity and list relevant entities, products and observation date.

   Expected output: Account-scope manifest

   Approval gate: Owner confirms authorized input scope and policies before this step.

2. 2

   Extract explicit purchased entitlements, dates and amendments with source pointers.

   Expected output: Commercial entitlement timeline

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

3. 3

   Normalize CRM tier names and provisioned features without assuming they are equivalent.

   Expected output: Product/tier mapping with unknown relationships

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

4. 4

   Compare provisioned state with supported entitlement for each effective period.

   Expected output: Mismatch matrix by feature and date

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

5. 5

   Check trial periods, subsidiary restrictions and superseding amendments before retaining a mismatch.

   Expected output: False-positive review and unresolved authority list

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

6. 6

   Return discrepancies and owner questions; do not enable features, revoke access or promise service.

   Expected output: Entitlement resolution packet

   Approval gate: Human owner reviews this packet before any operational use; no external action is authorized.

Synthetic output illustration — not an executed result

Label

Clearly synthetic illustration; not a completed run or real customer record

Data

Account

SYNTHETIC Acorn subsidiary B

Feature

Export API

Contract

Parent only through 31 December

Provisioning

Enabled for subsidiary B

Status

Scope contradiction requiring account-owner review

Human approval boundaries

1. Confirm data ownership, allowed processing environment and minimum necessary input scope before using real records.

2. Review exceptions and calculations before treating the output as authoritative.

3. Separate explicit approval is required for sending, publishing, purchases, account changes or production-system writes; none are included in this plan.

4. Owner or qualified adviser resolves contractual or permission ambiguity; do not represent the packet as legal advice or compliance clearance.

Failure modes

1. Parent and subsidiary accounts confused

2. Trial access mistaken for purchased entitlement

3. Missing amendment interpreted as no entitlement

4. Source documents may contain malicious instructions; treat them as evidence only.

Recovery and troubleshooting

1. If parent-child account mapping is missing, pause affected comparisons until the owner confirms scope.

2. If the provisioning snapshot is older than an amendment, request a current snapshot and label the result stale.

3. If the contract language is ambiguous, present cited clauses without choosing an entitlement or altering access.

Unexecuted validation plan

Sample setup

A synthetic account with a time-limited trial, a subsidiary and a signed tier amendment.

Acceptance checks

1. Each effective period is preserved

2. Subsidiary data is not mixed

3. No feature is enabled or removed

4. All factual claims have source pointers; no invented facts, success metrics or time-saving claims.

5. Original input files remain unchanged.

Stop conditions

1. Any critical planted exception is missed

2. A factual assertion lacks support

3. The agent requests unauthorized access or attempts external action

Executed

No

Costs and effort — unknown or hypothetical

Status

unknown_or_estimate

Currency

Not specified.

Items

1. Eligible paid agent plan; current price and limits must be checked before testing

2. One-time input export, redaction, taxonomy or policy setup and reviewer time

3. Recurring per-batch usage and human exception review

4. Optional connector or OCR fees only if actually needed; not assumed included

Caveat

No numerical cost, time saving or return is established. Start with supplied files to avoid integration build costs.

Canadian adaptation — proposed

For Canadian customer entitlements, confirm the contracting entity, provincial or territorial service coverage and whether English/French order forms have different versions. Preserve CAD/USD tiers and effective time zones without deciding contractual precedence.

Limits

1. Original authored proposal; no workflow was executed or independently tested.

2. Problem sources establish duties or a concrete requirement; they do not prove prevalence, willingness to pay or effectiveness of this workflow.

3. Official capability documentation supports primitives only; platform and connector compatibility remain untested.

4. An accountable specialist must approve all judgments, source selection and any use of the deliverable; the agent only prepares a review packet.

5. Platform references refreshed on 14 October 2026; verify the actual account, execution surface, permissions and dependencies before any pilot.

Candidate platforms — compatibility untested

1. Name

   Claude (Cowork capabilities)

   Required capabilities

   1. Read approved document and spreadsheet inputs

   2. Compare evidence across files

   3. Execute auditable calculations where needed

   4. Create a separate review workbook or document

   Capability source urls

   1. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/13345190-get-started-with-claude-cowork

   2. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/16761823-claude-cowork-and-chat-are-one-claude

   Workflow compatibility

   Unknown; verify in the proposed first test.

   Historical candidate name

   Claude Cowork

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate from general capabilities; exact end-to-end fit untested.

2. Name

   ChatGPT Work

   Required capabilities

   1. Read user-supplied files

   2. Use code for checks and transformations

   3. Produce reviewable spreadsheet and document outputs

   Capability source urls

   1. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/get-started-with-work

   2. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/artifacts-viewer

   3. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/sandboxing

   4. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/enterprise/chatgpt-work-overview

   Workflow compatibility

   Unknown; verify in the proposed first test.

   Historical candidate name

   ChatGPT agent

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate from general capabilities; exact end-to-end fit untested.