Architecture Portal

Learner, payer and representative

Different roles in one cancellation.

Adrian Sutherland · Version 1.0 · · © 2005–2026

The proposed distinctions

CU-D1 (Customer roles) explores the wider relationships in the fictional cancellation example. The first proposed process-only trial covers the provider’s own courses; partner courses and refunds are referred for a separate decision.

The learner decides whether an alternative meets their need. The payer may need to authorise a change in spending. A representative may act or receive information only within their agreed permissions. A real service would need to establish each responsibility.

Role Need Decision to retain
Learner A suitable alternative and clear confirmation. What constitutes their agreement and how it is recorded.
Payer Appropriate use of funds and any required adjustment. Who may authorise additional cost or a refund.
Representative Enough information and authority to assist. Which actions and disclosures are permitted.

In the proposed arrangement, the case owner progresses the resolution. Contacting the payer does not by itself establish learner agreement, and sending a message does not prove it was understood.

A finding to test

CU-F1 (Channel research) proposes checking whether the online and assisted paths allow the learner to express the same choice. Observe where clarification is needed and whether the person can correct an error. Record the research method and limitations. No interviews or trial have taken place for this example.

Consequences

A changed agreement rule affects the process, the case record, permissions and channels. Keep those relationships with the customer record so the next increment retains the decision.

About this edition

Refreshed for the September 2026 website update. This edition develops the earlier Architecture Portal and ASAF material; the fictional worked example was added in 2026.

Scope, limitations and next checks

Status and accountability

Read this page with its boundaries visible

Status

In development

Last reviewed

Intended users

  • Architects comparing and adapting their existing approach

Non-goals

  • Prescribing a mandatory method or claiming measured benefits

Limitations

  • Guidance illustrated by a fictional example; proposed designs and checks have not been implemented or run.

Next evidence sought

  • Review the guidance and try its records with a practising architect.