Track evidence and decisions in an ESG case

Entirely fictional: Officina Selce, one site and declared 2026 electricity use. The initial value is 0 kWh; a correction states 15 kWh. No certified measurement.

ESG evidence foundation in desktop Codex and local Work where supported. In Cowork the course uses one written conversation. No complete ESG report, VSME/ESRS or taxonomy calculation, assurance opinion, signing or sending.

Read brief-en.md and energy.csv. The first numeric cell is zero; the blank 2025 cell is not available. The excluded site is declared not applicable for this fictional case only; a blank alone does not establish that. Keep energy-update.csv for the next step.

• energy.csv
• energy-update.csv
• brief-en.md

Vera, prepare the fictional 2026 Officina Selce case. Bind values to files, distinguish zero, missing and not applicable, show a decision for review and a partial draft. Then import the correction from 0 to 15 kWh and show what became outdated.

1. Use Studio Archive to prepare a separate tutorial client, import the brief and energy.csv and start the current workflow. Agree period, service preparation and reporting basis unresolved without automatically selecting a standard. Start a synthetic case and bind rows 1, 2 and 3 of column kwh.
2. Show the original, locator, interpreted value and rationale. Before record_decision ask for the participant’s actual decision on these exact versions and dependencies. Leave it open if none is given. Label any simulation; never attribute it to the participant. Build a partial_draft memo with exact dependencies and no compliance claim.
3. Preserve the first run. Import energy-update.csv as a new immutable source and start a successor in the same engagement selecting old and new inputs. start_case uses the first previous_context; bind_evidence keeps logical ID energy and records 15. Open resume_case: energy v1 and dependent decision/draft are outdated, energy v2 is current; missing and not applicable remain distinct.

1. esg_state.json with files, hashes, cells, versions, rationales, decisions and dependencies; partial Markdown and JSON drafts.
2. Both Studio Archive contexts, originals and history, codex_run_review.md and the readable report of actual model reads. These are outputs to execute now, not supplied results.

Check client, period, unit, scope and source. Declared zero does not prove actual zero consumption. Missing needs collection; not applicable needs a reason. Review interpretation and sufficiency. A correction invalidates dependent decisions without renewing them. A declared name is not an authenticated signature.

1. Before deciding, locate all three cells and explain why the two blanks have different statuses.
2. After updating, show the current version and preserved old decision/draft; identify what needs review.

These pauses help you learn how to use the function. They are not a technical detail quiz.

With less guidance, use files/practice/ in a fresh tutorial client: Laboratorio Quarzo declares 8 kWh, then 12. Request the case, distinguish both blanks, prepare the initial draft and import the correction in the same engagement. Preserve the demo. Give your own decision or leave it open.

• energy.csv
• energy-update.csv
• brief-en.md

Find 0 then 15 kWh in the demo and 8 then 12 in practice. Original files and history remain readable; dependent decision/draft need review. The two null values retain distinct statuses and no complete report or opinion is approved.

Repeat by selecting client, engagement, period and relevant CSV/text files; state the request and review sources and interpretations. Updates are new inputs in the same engagement. The short guide targets 5–8 minutes; processing and practice may extend it. Files and progress stay local; model reads enter its context without automatic anonymisation.