# Halden mini-brain

FICTIONAL WORKSHOP DRAFT. Prepared reference example, source-checked by the pack author. Participant review still required. These aren't Enhesa facts or approvals.

## Index

- [Company](#company): scope and priorities.
- [Product and buyer](#product-and-buyer): capabilities, limits and user needs.
- [Team standards](#team-standards): voice, evidence and review.
- [Evidence and open questions](#evidence-and-open-questions): requests, ideas and gaps.
- [Change log](#change-log): what changed and who reviewed it.

## Company

Halden is a fictional regulatory-intelligence business for manufacturers operating across jurisdictions. Analysts interpret changes; customers retain decisions and responsibilities. This exercise concerns Monitor and the Reports module. Marketing's priority is qualified pipeline, so increased lead volume alone doesn't establish success. [Source: 01-company-and-product.md, Company and priority.]

The source pack resembles Enhesa's field of work but doesn't describe its products, customers or results. For task-specific reporting, add the separate exports and definitions described under [Evidence and open questions](#evidence-and-open-questions). [Sources: 01-company-and-product.md, opening notice; 04-marketing-meeting-notes.md, Agreed direction.]

## Product and buyer

Reports helps managers assemble reports from Monitor's change feed. Supported features are filters by site, jurisdiction and regulation type; saved layouts; PDF and CSV export; internal sharing with up to 25 named recipients; monthly or quarterly scheduling; and visibility of report opens. Saved layouts belong to their creator. Shared-report viewers don't need a Halden licence. [Source: 01-company-and-product.md, Confirmed capabilities.]

The feed updates once every 24 hours. Weekly scheduling, approval routing, API access and custom branding aren't supported in this release. Reports is planned for next quarter, with no exact date confirmed. It is included for Team-tier Monitor customers and above, not Single-site customers. No standalone price is supplied. [Source: 01-company-and-product.md, Confirmed capabilities; Limits and authority; Product and availability.]

The primary user is a compliance team manager. Fictional interviewee Mara coordinates six sites in three jurisdictions, supported by two analysts, and reports to an operations director. She wants relevant, traceable reports that colleagues can read without extra licences. She is concerned about lengthy setup and needs procurement and IT review. This is one interview, not a market-wide finding. [Source: 02-customer-interview.md, Role and work; Buying needs and concerns; What this interview establishes.]

## Team standards

Use British English, concrete wording and useful limits. Don't claim real-time updates or guaranteed compliance. Don't invent dates, prices, results or implementation durations. Product marketing reviews messaging, the product manager checks capabilities and availability, legal reviews legal/regulatory claims, and marketing operations checks reporting. Workshop review isn't real organisational sign-off. [Source: 03-messaging-and-team-standards.md, Voice and claims; Evidence and review.]

Link factual claims to original filenames and sections. Keep source material unchanged. Proposed context updates need human review and a dated log entry. See [Change log](#change-log). [Source: 03-messaging-and-team-standards.md, Evidence and review; Learning and reuse.]

## Evidence and open questions

Mara requests weekly reports and approval routing. Neither request establishes a capability. The meeting's weekly-report headline and real-time wording are unapproved ideas that conflict with [Product and buyer](#product-and-buyer). Record them as rejected draft directions, not product promises. [Sources: 02-customer-interview.md, Requested capabilities; 04-marketing-meeting-notes.md, Ideas raised; 01-company-and-product.md, Limits and authority.]

Unknowns: exact release date, demo link, implementation duration and additional pricing. No purchase commitment was made. The meeting proposes one launch email for existing Team-tier customers, but a new task needs its own brief. Marketing results aren't in these four sources; reporting requires separate fictional exports and definitions. [Sources: 04-marketing-meeting-notes.md, Agreed direction; Missing information; 02-customer-interview.md, What this interview establishes.]

## Change log

- 8 September 2026: prepared reference example from four fictional sources. Separated requests and ideas from capabilities. No participant approval recorded. Task outputs remain separate.