Two independent proposals answering the same brief, produced under the same conditions and
presented here for review side by side.
A customer wants visitors to reach their new website using a domain they already own.
Their existing email must continue working.
The brief named no solution — no DNS mechanism, no screens, no failure states. Working out
what the customer actually needs, what Ayuda can and cannot do, and who has to act, was part
of the task. Each proposal reached its own answer.
These are prototypes, not the product. Nothing here is connected to a real service.
No DNS, hosting, email or backup change is performed by anything on these pages. All names,
domains, addresses and identifiers are fictional. Where a page shows a proposed behaviour
that CP26 does not have today, it is the proposal speaking, not a description of the product.
Draft 1
Client portal and ops portal, with a shared simulated service between them.
The drafts are labelled Draft 1 and Draft 2 rather than by how they were
produced, so they can be judged on what they are. The single deliberate difference between
the two runs is recorded outside this page.
Worth looking at specifically
Whether either proposal addresses the customer's second requirement — that their existing
email keeps working — and whether it does so without assuming a capability Ayuda has not
been shown to have.
Whether an action taken on the customer side is reflected truthfully on the operator side,
and whether the simulated outcome agrees with both.
Whether either page claims a capability, policy, service commitment or successful outcome
that has not been established.
Whether each consequential step earns its place, or whether complexity has been added
without purpose.