Product Brief - Visual Guide to the Service Agreement

Product Brief — Visual Guide to the Service Agreement

Type: P3 Product Artefact — Stage 3 (Ingested — with gap noted)
Source: NbLM extraction pass (IFC notebook: 07344d6e-933e-43f0-81e2-8576ff93e178) + P3 Minimum Viable Products filter
Programme binding key: SD-IFC-2026-001
IFC Component: #2
Sentinel authority: Andrew (Product pillar)
Date: 2026-05-10
Score: 12/14 — Ingest with gap noted (via P3 Product Brief Scoring Rubric)
Status: Active — visual design approach gap logged (G-01)
Reference: P3 Minimum Viable Products, Strategy Dossier - IFC

Classification

  • Product type: Instrument (primary) — provides the documentary mechanism for informed financial consent. Theory (secondary) — transfers understanding of billing types, budget monitoring triggers, and the practitioner's conflict of interest disclosures.
  • Blue Ocean / Red Ocean: Blue Ocean. No existing NDIS service agreement translates contractual obligations into a visual, accessible format that explicitly separates NF2F/F2F costs, documents the SC/PRC blend, and includes budget monitoring triggers and an Impartiality Shield.

Six-Part Brief

1. Beneficiary Statement

Primary beneficiaries: NDIS participants — especially those with psychosocial vulnerabilities, trauma histories, cognitive overload, or intellectual disabilities — and dual-role SC/PRC practitioners.

Before the guide: participants were passive signatories to complex service agreements they did not understand, exposing them to hidden Non-Face-to-Face (NF2F) charges, rapid budget depletion, and rigid support models. Practitioners had no structured mechanism to document informed consent for dual-role billing, creating audit risk.

After the guide: participants achieve "financial sovereignty" — they understand their rights, comprehend the billing implications of each support type, and sign a service agreement that reflects their genuine, self-directed allocation. Practitioners hold a signed document that constitutes an audit shield against claims of over-servicing, double-dipping, or Code of Conduct violations.

2. Value Exchange Statement

Classification: Instrument (primary), Theory (secondary).

What transfers to the participant:

  1. Legal and financial comprehension: The ability to understand — before signing — the difference between Non-Face-to-Face (NF2F) coordination work, Face-to-Face (F2F) coaching, and Provider Travel costs, and to authorise each explicitly.

  2. Choice documentation: The ability to exercise genuine informed financial consent by selecting one of three defined models (Coordination Only, Coaching Only, or Blended) and having that choice recorded in a legally binding document.

  3. Transparency assurance: Knowledge of what the practitioner explicitly does NOT provide (the Impartiality Shield) — creating the conditions for genuinely independent advice.

Form of transfer: A highly accessible, visual document used at the initial intake or "meet and greet" — translating legal clauses into plain English with visual separation of billing types, monitoring triggers, and choice options.

3. Core Hypothesis

If we translate the service agreement into an accessible visual format that explicitly separates NF2F and F2F costs, maps Category 07 budget to both SC (Outcome 8) and PRC (Outcome 6), and includes conflict of interest disclosures, then participants will exercise genuine informed financial consent — and the signed agreement will constitute an audit-proof record of the participant's self-directed allocation choice.

What will confirm this: The participant can articulate their billing authorisation (NF2F / F2F / Travel) and their support allocation (Coordination / Coaching / Blended) in their own words before signing. The signed agreement is accepted by the NDIA and not challenged in audit.

4. Probe Design

Minimum viable version: A visual document covering the following five structural elements, used at intake:

  1. Three choices: Coordination Only (SC, Outcome 8) / Coaching Only (PRC, Outcome 6) / The Blended Option — participant selects and signs.

  2. Billing type breakdown: Explicit separation of Non-Face-to-Face (NF2F), Face-to-Face (F2F), and Provider Travel costs — what each is, when it applies, what the NDIS price limits are.

  3. Budget monitoring triggers: The 50% and 80% utilisation points — what happens at each threshold, who initiates a review, and what the participant's options are.

  4. The Impartiality Shield: A visual declaration of what the practitioner does NOT provide (Core Supports, Plan Management, SIL, Clinical Therapy) — preserving independence.

  5. Flexibility Clause: Statement of the Least-Cost-Appropriate-Provider decision rule — commitment to step down to lower-cost supports when capacity is built.

Known gap — visual design approach: The exact visual format, metaphor system, and slide layouts for this product have not yet been specified in Andrew's notebook. Component #1 has a detailed Fibonacci Shell structure; Component #2's visual approach is yet to be defined. This is noted as G-01 and does not block the probe.

5. Done Criteria

The probe is complete when ALL of the following are observable:

  • A participant completes the visual intake session for the Service Agreement
  • The participant can articulate in their own words what NF2F means and why they are authorising it
  • The participant selects one of the three support models and signs the Service Agreement with that selection recorded
  • The signed agreement is used in at least one NDIA interaction without triggering a compliance query related to NF2F billing or dual-role duplication

6. Validity Marker

Design Element Governing Commitment
Explicit NF2F / F2F / Travel separation and participant authorisation Informed Financial Consent requirement — providers must secure explicit participant consent for NF2F and travel claim types
Three-choice selection (SC / PRC / Blended) Section 4, NDIS Act 2013 — participant's right to determine best interests; R106 flexibility doctrine
Impartiality Shield — what the practitioner does NOT do PR-I001 — Managed Conflict of Interest; the sacrifice list in Strategy Dossier - IFC
50% and 80% budget monitoring triggers PR-I001 — Fiduciary commitment to protect participant budget from premature depletion

Gaps and Unknowns

ID Description Severity Disposition
G-01 Visual design approach (metaphor system, slide layouts) not yet specified — NbLM has detailed Fibonacci Shell structure for Component #1 but not for Component #2 Medium Does not block probe. Visual design to be developed with Andrew in a future intake cycle.
G-02 Exact PAPL price limits to embed in the billing type breakdown need to be drawn from the current PAPL version at time of production Low Managed by PR-R001 (PAPL Currency). Update when visual assets are produced.

Brief produced: 2026-05-10 via NbLM extraction pass on IFC notebook (07344d6e-933e-43f0-81e2-8576ff93e178).
NbLM source confidence: Five of six fields well-supported. G-01 flagged by NbLM — visual design approach insufficient.
Score: 12/14. Ingested with gap noted.