# Inquiry Gap Checklist

Use this checklist with Method Media’s **Seven places a good inquiry disappears**.

Choose one real inquiry source and trace it to one responsible first response. Use non-sensitive internal test data. This checklist does not replace legal, privacy, security, accessibility, deliverability, or professional advice, and it does not guarantee a response, sale, or other result.

## Before the test

- Inquiry source:
- Intended requester:
- Published offer or resource:
- Destination:
- Named owner:
- Date tested:
- Person responsible for corrections:

## Gap 1: The page attracts the wrong request

- [ ] The page says who the work or resource is for.
- [ ] The useful result is concrete.
- [ ] Important exclusions are visible.
- [ ] Price, free status, or pricing process is accurate.
- [ ] The next action matches what the system can actually do.

Evidence:

Correction:

## Gap 2: The form collects contact details without enough context

- [ ] The form collects only the minimum useful information.
- [ ] The requester can describe the current situation and desired finish.
- [ ] Required fields are marked.
- [ ] The form warns against sending passwords, payment details, access keys, private health information, or other secrets.
- [ ] Every field has a named purpose and responsible user.

Evidence:

Correction:

## Gap 3: The success state has no durable record

- [ ] The visible success message accurately describes what happened.
- [ ] A real record appears in the intended destination.
- [ ] A reference or other evidence of receipt exists when the system promises one.
- [ ] Duplicate or failed submissions have a defined handling path.
- [ ] Retention and deletion follow the operator’s legitimate requirements.

Evidence:

Correction:

## Gap 4: An alert reaches several people but assigns nobody

- [ ] Every open inquiry has one human owner.
- [ ] Reassignment is visible.
- [ ] A shared inbox, channel, automation, or CRM is not treated as the owner.
- [ ] The owner knows the next decision they are expected to make.

Evidence:

Correction:

## Gap 5: The acknowledgement makes an unsupported promise

- [ ] Receipt is confirmed only when a record actually exists.
- [ ] A request is not described as an accepted engagement.
- [ ] No unverified response time, availability, price, start date, or outcome appears.
- [ ] Exceptions and consequential promises return to a person.
- [ ] The acknowledgement provides a truthful next expectation.

Evidence:

Correction:

## Gap 6: The record has a status but no next action

- [ ] Every status has a written meaning.
- [ ] Every open inquiry has one specific next action.
- [ ] Every open inquiry has a review or follow-up date.
- [ ] “Waiting” records name what is awaited and when the owner will review them.
- [ ] Closed records have a short factual outcome.

Evidence:

Correction:

## Gap 7: Failures remain invisible

- [ ] A form or integration error reaches a responsible person.
- [ ] The source record can be checked when an alert is missing.
- [ ] The acknowledgement path is tested separately from the internal alert.
- [ ] A manual route exists for important work.
- [ ] The owner knows who can pause or disable an unreliable automation.

Evidence:

Correction:

## Safe test cases

| Case | Expected visible result | Expected record | Owner | Passed / correction |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ordinary complete inquiry |  |  |  |  |
| Missing required information |  |  |  |  |
| Out-of-scope request |  |  |  |  |
| Duplicate action |  |  |  |  |
| Simulated failed notification |  |  |  |  |

## Smallest complete repair

- First broken handoff:
- Repair:
- Human owner:
- Evidence required:
- Manual fallback:
- Review date:

Add no new tool until the one-source path is understandable. Automation may prepare, route, alert, or draft where responsible, but a person remains accountable for permission, accuracy, access, promises, exceptions, and the final response.