Guide users to NIS without collecting personal information
Give people a respectful explanation and an honest route forward when the bot cannot decide or access their case.
01 · Understand
Why this issue exists
Stopping an unsafe answer is only half the job. A refusal without a next step abandons the person.
02 · Investigate
Service-writing challenge
A safe refusal can still be cold
Two handoffs may both avoid personal data. One sounds like a system protecting itself; the other sounds like a service protecting the customer. Only one is good product.
- 1Why can the bot not answer this case?
- 2What can it still do usefully?
- 3Which personal details must the message never request?
- 4What must remain review-pending?
03 · Decide
Which handoff is safest and most useful?
04 · Make the thinking visible
Team workspace
Discuss first, then record the team’s reasoning. These notes stay in this browser until you copy them.
Keep it technically safe. You will improve its tone in the next field.
Preserve every safety rule while sounding respectful and human.
List every identifying, medical, account or case detail the handoff must not request.
05 · Scaffold
One route, several honest explanations
Personal, status, unsupported and unavailable-source cases may share a route, but their explanations should match the reason.
def handoff(reason: ReasonCode) -> Answer:
"""Return a warm, privacy-safe next step."""
# Explain the boundary.
# State that NIS determines individual cases.
# Use only an approved or review-pending route.
# Promise no outcome or response time.
...06 · Prove it
Evidence checklist
Tick an item only when the team can show the evidence and another student can explain it.
Push further
Stretch challenge
Read the response aloud in a Grenadian service context. Improve warmth without pretending certainty or copying the customer’s dialect.