# Focus-group service handoff and acceptance worksheet

Authored commissioning aid using actual local recognition differences, not a purchased service review. Public source is the individual Library of Congress interview ncr002360. It is not a focus-group test or a verified speaker transcript. Configuration, source audio link and exact excerpts: /data/focus-group-transcription-services-record.json .

## Worked acceptance prompts

| Actual observation | Proposed question for the brief | Completed review result |
|---|---|---|
| Same words in A-tiny.en cue 11 and B-small.en cue 12; different reported start/end times | Must the delivered file preserve the submitted timing, or may it be a retimed version? | Unfilled; no independent alignment reference established |
| A-tiny.en cue 18 groups material across B-small.en cues 18 and 19; wording also differs | If grouping changes, how will old passage references map to the delivery? | Unfilled; no commissioned revision performed |
| Tahoe statement ends with comma in A-tiny.en cue 13 and period in B-small.en cue 14 | Which punctuation edits are allowed, and which changes affecting interpretation need explanation? | Unfilled; punctuation has not been verified against speech |

## Your commissioning brief

Recording identifier/version:

Submitted draft version:

Required transcription convention:

Speaker-label evidence and unresolved-speaker notation:

Overlap notation:

Timing preservation or retiming requirement:

Required files and passage-reference mapping:

Access, retention and return requirements:

## Real delivery review

Returned transcript version:

Reviewer and review date:

Source passages checked:

Amendments and reference mappings:

Outstanding questions and responsible person:

Acceptance decision and reason:

Keep fields unfilled until a real commission and review supply the evidence. These prompts do not establish provider performance, adherence or certification.