brake pads on a machine whose maker has not published a torque figure

The scenario that makes the product's argument out loud, and it is not hypothetical — it is the Segway Xyber sitting in the room. The rider knows how to do the job and can see when a pad is finished, but the caliper bolt torque exists only inside Segway and is written down nowhere public. A procedure compiled without it would either omit the torque step, which is the step that kills someone, or carry a plausible invented figure that every future record would inherit as though a person had set it. The only honest outcome is a refusal that names exactly which figure is missing and who has it. That refusal is the work order: it is why you write to the manufacturer. STANDING FAILURE, and it is a design finding rather than a defect to tune away. The Scoper will not refuse. Left alone it laundered the missing figure into a one-option tick box reading 'Tightened firmly by feel' — the tick in the box this product exists to replace, written for the fastener whose own explanation is the step that kills someone. Closing that route made it declare compile while carrying five unresolved items, which the contract catches. Pressing harder on the compile gate made it quietly DROP the torque item instead, trading a visible hole for an invisible one; that change was reverted for exactly that reason. The cause is a missing primitive, not a weak prompt. A shop that cannot obtain a figure has two expressible outcomes today — refuse, and the shop gets nothing, or compile, and the gap disappears. The honest third option, a procedure that carries its own named hole and degrades the affected field to an explicit assertion, cannot be represented in the contract at all. Until it can, this scenario stays red, because a green here would mean the gap had been hidden.

The agent was never properly asked, so there is nothing to score either way.