# Rewrite memo — ferguson-cx **Word count (body):** ~1,010 words · **Hero variant:** V2B · **Anonymisation:** Tier A --- ## 1. The story I found This is the cleanest existing case in the set. The argument is already present, the reframe is already named, and the scaling is already strong. The rewrite is primarily structural: adding the argument paragraph, promoting the reframe to a named section, promoting the scaling to a named section, and tightening the Process Timeline section which reads as process documentation rather than argument. The argument a reviewer should remember: investigating the brief instead of executing it produced a reframe that made everything downstream possible. "Make waiting feel better" → "prevent the two moments where waiting becomes betrayal" is the entire case in one sentence. Without that reframe, the engagement produces worse-waiting-area interventions. With it, it produces two named prototypes that met all their design criteria and are still running. The secondary argument — field staff who understand why a solution works can adapt it; field staff who were handed a solution can't — is present in Chapter 04 and is the case's most overlooked beat. The Kevin Sills quotes carry it. --- ## 2. What I kept - **The "two named service breakdowns" reframe.** Kept verbatim in Chapter 02 — it's the case's clearest argument moment. - **Both prototype descriptions** (Make-It-Happen, KnockKnock) with their design criteria scores. Kept in Chapter 03 — the specificity is the case's credibility. - **"Met all 5 of its design criteria" and "Met all 7 of its design criteria."** Kept verbatim — clean, confident, no hedging needed. - **Both Kevin Sills quotes.** Kept in Chapters 04 and Scaling — they're the case's participant voice and are the most specific CX-practitioner endorsement in the portfolio. - **The "cross-pollination" closing beat.** Branch leads asking about trying each other's prototypes. This is the most concrete evidence of scaling without dependency — kept in the scaling section. - **The "Counter Experience Principles as rubric" observation.** Kept in Chapter 01 — it shows that the principles weren't decoration; they were evaluation criteria. --- ## 3. What I cut and why - **The 7-phase Process Timeline as a section.** The existing case gives the framework a full section with a rendered `` component and a 75-word description of the three participant layers. In the rewrite, the framework is referenced in one sentence in Chapter 01 ("The seven-phase framework I built to run the project... was designed while running it, not designed in advance") and the ProcessTimeline becomes a Placeholder. The framework is context, not the argument. - **"Two pieces of upstream work shaped everything."** The service blueprint and Counter Experience Principles are given their own spotlight in the original. In the rewrite, they appear in Chapter 01 as setup without their own sub-section — the reframe chapter (02) is where the setup pays off, and the reader needs to get there faster. - **"The CX leadership read on the engagement was clear."** The three-sentence paragraph summarizing CX leadership's framing is absorbed into the scaling section. It was doing summary work in the original; the scaling section does the same work with more argument behind it. - **The `` section header and layout.** The live MDX uses a dark-band component for the prototypes section. In the MDX source for the rewrite, the prototypes appear as inline chapter content. The dark-band styling is a design-system-applier decision for when the MDX gets ported to the live site. --- ## 4. What I added - **Argument paragraph.** The existing case opened with "A $20B distributor asked for a way to 'make waiting feel better.'" The rewrite opens with a thesis that names the argument (investigating the brief changed the design target) before the backstory. - **Formally named reframe section.** The reframe was present in the original as an `` — the best-formatted version of the case's pivot, but not structurally prominent enough. The rewrite promotes it to its own named section. - **Formally named scaling section.** The original had two sections at the end: "The field staff started defending the work" and "The work outlasted the engagement." The rewrite separates the adoption signal (Chapter 04) from the scaling argument (Scaling section) so each does its own work. - **Hero: "Waiting wasn't the problem."** The existing title was the case's journey framing ("From X to Y"). The new title is the case's argument. The sub-banner picks up the journey framing, so the displacement is still named. --- ## 5. Hero variant choice: V2B (typography-led) "Waiting wasn't the problem" is six words that carry the case's entire argument. V2B puts that statement in the hero position where it belongs. The sub-banner ("two branch prototypes that replaced a vague brief with two named service breakdowns") names the displacement. The case doesn't have a multi-chapter arc that benefits from a spine preview — it has a reframe followed by its proof, which is a single through-line rather than a sequence. --- ## 6. Open questions for Whitney 1. **The two prototype images.** Both concept canvas images (`ferguson-cx-make-it-happen.jpeg` and `ferguson-cx-knockknock.jpeg`) are in the site repo. Are both cleared for publication in the rewrite preview? The canvases show branch-specific operational details (Round Rock, Tamarac), which are public-name but may have internal operational specifics that need masking. 2. **Design criteria source.** The case says Make-It-Happen "met all 5 of its design criteria" and KnockKnock "met all 7." Where do these criteria come from — are they the Counter Experience Principles, or a separate criteria set developed for each prototype? Naming the source makes the claim more credible to a senior reviewer. 3. **Branch lead quotes attribution.** Kevin Sills is named by name in the existing case. Is he comfortable being named publicly in the rewrite? The original case is already live with his name, so the assumption is yes — but worth confirming if the rewrite goes to a new URL or wider distribution.