Caterpillar Assessment Tests

Caterpillar Situational Judgement Test

1. Question 1 of 10

   You are a research assistant in a university laboratory. You and a postdoctoral colleague, Wei, disagree about whether a set of anomalous results should be included in a paper being submitted next week. He wants to exclude them as experimental error; you think they are real and should be reported. The principal investigator is at a conference and reachable by email. Wei is drafting the paper now. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Defer to Wei since he is more experienced and it is his paper to draft, and keep your own record of the anomalous results in case they matter later.
   2. Email the principal investigator now setting out the disagreement, since inclusion of data is her decision and the submission deadline is next week.
   3. Say nothing further and let the paper go out without the anomalous results, since Wei is confident they are experimental error and challenging him would strain a working relationship you rely on.
   4. Set out to Wei why you think the results are real, and if you still disagree put the question to the principal investigator by email before the paper is submitted.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: D. Set out to Wei why you think the results are real, and if you still disagree put the question to the principal investigator by email before the paper is submitted.

   Least effective: C. Say nothing further and let the paper go out without the anomalous results, since Wei is confident they are experimental error and challenging him would strain a working relationship you rely on.

   A: Prioritises the record over the outcome: a private note protects you while a paper goes out without data you believe are real, which is a question about the published science rather than about seniority.

   B: Escalates prematurely: Wei has not yet heard your reasoning in full, and taking it straight to the principal investigator at a conference makes a formal dispute of something a conversation may settle.

   C: Fails to escalate a genuine risk: it lets data you believe are real be excluded from a publication because raising it would be uncomfortable. Silence about what goes into the scientific record is a different order of wrong from raising it clumsily.

   The most effective response is to set out to Wei why you think the results are real, and if you still disagree put the question to the principal investigator before submission: whether the anomalies are error or signal is a scientific question with evidence behind it, he has not yet heard your full reasoning, and there is time to reach her. Talking first is proportionate and escalating on continued disagreement is proper. It beats emailing the principal investigator now to set out the disagreement, because doing that before he has heard the argument turns a scientific discussion into a dispute referred over his head. It beats deferring to him while keeping your own record of the anomalous results, because a private record protects you and does nothing about what is published. The least effective response is saying nothing further and letting the paper go out without them: it allows data you believe are real to be excluded because the conversation would be awkward, which is a decision about the scientific record taken for social reasons. That is worse than the other two, which handle it imperfectly but keep the question alive. The principle: argue the evidence with your colleague first, then take it to whoever owns the decision, before the work is committed.

2. Question 2 of 10

   You are a warehouse operative at a pharmaceutical distributor. Picking an order you notice a pallet of temperature-sensitive medicines standing in the main aisle rather than in the cold room. You do not know how long it has been there. The order it belongs to is due to ship in an hour. The quality supervisor is on site. There is a written procedure for temperature excursions that you have seen but not been trained on. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Leave the pallet where it is, tell the quality supervisor now that temperature-sensitive stock has been out of the cold room for an unknown time, and let her apply the excursion procedure.
   2. Move the pallet into the cold room straight away so the medicines stop warming, and mention it to the quality supervisor when you next see her.
   3. Say nothing, since you do not know how long it has been there, it may have been moved out minutes ago, and you have not been trained on the excursion procedure.
   4. Read the excursion procedure and follow the steps yourself so the pallet is handled correctly before the order ships in an hour.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: A. Leave the pallet where it is, tell the quality supervisor now that temperature-sensitive stock has been out of the cold room for an unknown time, and let her apply the excursion procedure.

   Least effective: C. Say nothing, since you do not know how long it has been there, it may have been moved out minutes ago, and you have not been trained on the excursion procedure.

   B: Removes the evidence: cooling the pallet erases how long it was out, which is the one fact the excursion procedure exists to establish. The stock is no safer for having been put back.

   C: Fails to escalate a genuine risk: medicines whose temperature history is unknown are about to ship to patients, and the reason for silence, that you are untrained, is exactly why it needs to reach someone who is trained.

   D: Acts outside own training: applying a procedure you have never been trained on, to decide whether medicines are still fit to ship, risks a confident and wrong answer within the hour.

   The most effective response is to leave the pallet where it is and tell the quality supervisor now that temperature-sensitive stock has been out of the cold room for an unknown time: that is precisely what the excursion procedure exists to assess, and she is on site and trained to do it before the order ships. Leaving the pallet untouched preserves the information she needs. It beats moving it into the cold room straight away and mentioning it later, because that destroys the evidence of how long it was out, and warmed stock is not made safe by being cooled again. It beats reading the excursion procedure and following the steps yourself, because working through a procedure you have never been trained on, to decide whether medicines are fit for patients, is a decision made on the wrong authority under time pressure. The least effective response is saying nothing because you do not know how long it has been there and have not been trained: it lets medicines of unknown temperature history ship to patients and tells nobody, using your own lack of training as the reason for silence. That is worse than the other two, which act wrongly but bring the problem into the open. The principle: when something is outside your training and about to become irreversible, preserve the situation and get the trained person to it.

3. Question 3 of 10

   You are an administrator at a driving instructor training company. A candidate is booked for an assessment on Thursday. On Tuesday the examiner tells you he cannot attend and the next available date is in three weeks. The candidate has already paid and has told you he has a job offer conditional on passing this month. He is contactable. Your centre manager is available today. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Ring the candidate today, explain the examiner cannot attend and the next date is three weeks away, and ask your centre manager what else can be offered given his job offer.
   2. Leave the booking in place and tell him on Thursday when he arrives, since another examiner may become available before then and there is no point worrying him early.
   3. Rebook him into the next available assessment in three weeks and email him the new date, apologising for the change and confirming that his fee carries over.
   4. Email him today to say Thursday's assessment has to be moved and that you will confirm a new date once the examiner's availability has been finalised.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: A. Ring the candidate today, explain the examiner cannot attend and the next date is three weeks away, and ask your centre manager what else can be offered given his job offer.

   Least effective: B. Leave the booking in place and tell him on Thursday when he arrives, since another examiner may become available before then and there is no point worrying him early.

   B: Hides the problem / silent deadline slip: he travels to an assessment you know is not happening, and loses two days in which he could have sought an alternative. Betting his job offer on an examiner appearing is concealment.

   C: Substitutes own judgement for the stakeholder's: it fixes the diary and ignores the fact he told you about, a job offer conditional on passing this month, which the new date defeats.

   D: Delays the message: it reaches him in time and withholds the three week gap, which is the fact that collides with his job offer and the only one he can act on.

   The most effective response is to ring the candidate today, explain the examiner cannot attend and the next date is three weeks away, and ask your centre manager what else can be offered: he has a job offer conditional on passing this month, a three-week delay defeats it, and she may have options, another examiner or another centre, that you do not. Telling him today while that is being explored is the only response that engages with what is actually at stake. It beats rebooking him into the next available assessment and emailing the new date, because that treats a problem about his job offer as a diary entry. It beats emailing to say Thursday has to move with a date to follow, because withholding the three-week gap keeps from him the one fact he needs to act on. The least effective response is leaving the booking in place and telling him when he arrives on Thursday: it lets him travel to an assessment that is not happening and burns two days of a deadline he told you about. That is worse than the other two, which respond inadequately but in time. The principle: when someone has told you what is riding on a date, give them the bad news at once and take the problem to whoever might have another route.

4. Question 4 of 10

   You are an administrator in a college admissions office. It is results week, your colleague who shares the enquiry inbox is off sick, and incoming enquiries have roughly doubled since Monday. You have also promised the finance office an enrolment reconciliation they need before they can start invoicing tuition fees. This morning the queue of unanswered enquiries is growing visibly, and your team leader asks how you plan to manage the day. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Assure your team leader you will cover the doubled enquiries and still deliver the reconciliation today, so nobody needs to worry about the absence.
   2. Set the reconciliation aside for the week and put all your time into the enquiry queue, assuming the finance office can start invoicing a little later.
   3. Take a few minutes to assess the workload, tell your team leader realistically what you can cover today and where support is needed, then work through the enquiries steadily.
   4. Tell your team leader, in front of the rest of the team, that the situation is unmanageable and management should have arranged cover, and continue only with your normal workload.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: C. Take a few minutes to assess the workload, tell your team leader realistically what you can cover today and where support is needed, then work through the enquiries steadily.

   Least effective: D. Tell your team leader, in front of the rest of the team, that the situation is unmanageable and management should have arranged cover, and continue only with your normal workload.

   A: Over-promises: committing to absorb a doubled enquiry load and still deliver the reconciliation today gambles on a pace one person is unlikely to sustain, and sets up a late failure that is harder to manage than an honest assessment now.

   B: Abandons own committed work: dropping the reconciliation on an assumption leaves the finance office unable to start invoicing, without checking what they actually need, a promise quietly shelved rather than pressure honestly managed.

   D: Blames others publicly: announcing in front of the team that the situation is unmanageable, while refusing to adapt, turns pressure into complaint; it does nothing to reduce the queue and undermines the team leader and colleagues who still have to cope.

   The most effective response is to assess the workload, tell your team leader realistically what you can cover and where support is needed, then work the queue steadily: it meets the spike calmly and gives an honest picture of what one person can and cannot do, which keeps output up without pretending the pressure away. It beats assuring your team leader you will cover everything, because that promises a pace one person is unlikely to sustain, and the resulting failure would surface late in the day when it is hardest to fix. It beats setting the reconciliation aside for the week, because that quietly shelves a commitment the finance office is relying on, based on an assumption about their timetable rather than a conversation. The least effective response is declaring the situation unmanageable in front of the rest of the team and doing only your normal workload: unlike over-promising, which at least throws effort at the problem, and unlike shelving the reconciliation, which at least keeps the enquiry queue moving, it converts pressure into public blame and refusal, helping nobody and souring the team on a difficult day. The principle: under a workload spike, stay composed. Assess honestly, tell people what is realistic, and keep working, rather than over-promising, quietly dropping commitments, or blaming.

5. Question 5 of 10

   You are an account assistant at a catering supplier. A regular client has booked food for a conference on Thursday. On Tuesday you discover the order was entered for eighty covers rather than the hundred and eighty confirmed in the client’s email. Production can make up the difference only if the kitchen is told today, and the client’s contact is travelling with intermittent phone signal. Your account manager is on leave until Thursday. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Leave the order at eighty covers, since that is what the system says and the client's own contact cannot be reached to authorise a change before the kitchen's deadline.
   2. Email the client's contact setting out the discrepancy and asking her to confirm the correct number before you ask the kitchen to increase the production run.
   3. Tell the kitchen today to produce the hundred and eighty confirmed in writing, and immediately email and text the client explaining the correction and asking her to flag any change.
   4. Ask the kitchen to produce the full hundred and eighty covers now, and tell the client on Thursday morning that there was an ordering error which has already been resolved.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: C. Tell the kitchen today to produce the hundred and eighty confirmed in writing, and immediately email and text the client explaining the correction and asking her to flag any change.

   Least effective: A. Leave the order at eighty covers, since that is what the system says and the client's own contact cannot be reached to authorise a change before the kitchen's deadline.

   A: Hides the problem / silent deadline slip: you know the written confirmation says a hundred and eighty and let a conference go a hundred covers short without telling anyone. Hiding behind the system record is concealment, not caution.

   B: Delays the decision: she is travelling with poor signal and the kitchen needs today's instruction. Waiting for a confirmation that may not arrive spends the only window in which the shortfall can be fixed.

   D: Hides the problem: the covers get made and the client is told after the event she could no longer influence. She loses any say in a change to her own order, and learns of the error only once it cannot matter.

   The most effective response is to tell the kitchen today to produce the hundred and eighty confirmed in writing, and immediately email and text the client explaining the correction: her written confirmation is the best evidence of what she ordered, the kitchen’s window closes today, and reaching her on two channels at once means she is informed and can still correct you. Acting and informing together is what the situation allows; only one of them is not enough. It beats emailing her contact and asking her to confirm the number before you tell the kitchen, because waiting for a reply from someone with intermittent signal spends the kitchen’s window on a confirmation you already hold in writing. It beats producing the full number now and telling her on Thursday morning, because that takes a decision about her order out of her hands when she could still have had a say. The least effective response is leaving the order at eighty covers because that is what the system says: it lets a conference go a hundred covers short, against a written confirmation you have read, and tells nobody, using the system record as cover for doing nothing. That is worse than emailing for confirmation, which at least asks, and worse than telling her afterwards, which at least gets the food right. The principle: when the evidence is clear and the window is closing, act on the evidence and tell the client at the same time, not instead.

6. Question 6 of 10

   You work in the office of a removals company. A customer’s move is booked for Friday. On Wednesday the crew supervisor tells you the larger van has broken down and only a smaller one is available, which will mean two trips and finishing about three hours later than planned. The customer has to hand her keys over at 4pm on Friday. She is contactable. Your operations manager is in today. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Say nothing and hope the crew make up the time on the day, since telling her now would worry her about something that may not turn out to be a problem at all.
   2. Email the customer to say the schedule for Friday has been revised slightly and that the crew will do everything possible to finish as early as they can.
   3. Ring the customer and promise that the move will still be finished by 4pm, then work out with the crew how the two trips can be compressed to make that happen.
   4. Ring the customer today, explain the van problem and the likely three-hour overrun against her 4pm handover, and go through the options with your operations manager's input.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: D. Ring the customer today, explain the van problem and the likely three-hour overrun against her 4pm handover, and go through the options with your operations manager's input.

   Least effective: A. Say nothing and hope the crew make up the time on the day, since telling her now would worry her about something that may not turn out to be a problem at all.

   A: Hides the problem / silent deadline slip: she has a 4pm key handover that cannot move, and the plan is to let her discover the overrun on the day. Betting her completion on the crew catching up is concealment, not optimism.

   B: Delays the message: it reaches her in time and hides the fact that matters, a three-hour overrun against a 4pm key handover she cannot move.

   C: Over-promises: it commits to a time before anyone has established that two trips can be done in the original window, which risks breaking the same promise on the day her keys change hands.

   The most effective response is to ring the customer today, explain the van problem and the likely three-hour overrun against her 4pm handover, and go through the options with your operations manager’s input: the handover is fixed and legal, a three-hour overrun puts it in jeopardy, and on Wednesday she still has two days to arrange a later handover or extra help. Involving the operations manager means the options offered are real ones. It beats emailing that the schedule has been revised slightly and the crew will finish as early as they can, because that withholds the number she needs to plan around. It beats ringing to promise the move will still finish by 4pm, because committing to that before knowing whether two trips fit risks breaking the promise on the day it matters most. The least effective response is saying nothing and hoping the crew make up the time: it leaves her to discover a three-hour overrun on the day her keys change hands, while two days of alternatives were available. That is worse than the other two, which communicate badly but in time. The principle: when a fixed external deadline is threatened, tell the person while they can still move something.

7. Question 7 of 10

   You are an events assistant at a wedding venue. A couple’s wedding is on Saturday. On Thursday the marquee supplier tells you the marquee ordered is no longer available and only a smaller one can be delivered, which will not seat the full guest list of a hundred and twenty. The couple are contactable. Your venue manager is off until Saturday morning. The couple have already sent seating plans. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Ring the couple today, explain the marquee is unavailable and what the smaller one would mean for their guest list, and go through the options with them before anything is confirmed.
   2. Work out a revised seating arrangement that fits the smaller marquee, then send it to the couple so they can see the problem and the solution together.
   3. Accept the smaller marquee and tell the couple on Saturday morning when the venue manager is back, since there is nothing they can usefully do about it beforehand.
   4. Spend Thursday and Friday ringing round other marquee suppliers, and contact the couple only if you cannot find one that fits the full guest list.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: A. Ring the couple today, explain the marquee is unavailable and what the smaller one would mean for their guest list, and go through the options with them before anything is confirmed.

   Least effective: C. Accept the smaller marquee and tell the couple on Saturday morning when the venue manager is back, since there is nothing they can usefully do about it beforehand.

   B: Substitutes own judgement for the stakeholder's: how a hundred and twenty guests are seated at their own wedding is the couple's decision, and presenting a finished plan removes it from them.

   C: Hides the problem / silent deadline slip: it is untrue that nothing can be done on Thursday and Friday, and telling them on the morning of the wedding removes every remaining option. That is concealment at the worst possible moment.

   D: Delays the message: the search is worth doing and it is being done instead of telling them. If it fails, the couple learn on Friday night with no time left at all.

   The most effective response is to ring the couple today, explain the marquee is unavailable and what the smaller one would mean for their guest list, and go through the options before anything is confirmed: it is their wedding and their guest list, they have two days in which real alternatives exist, and only they can weigh a smaller marquee against the rest. Telling them first keeps the decision theirs. It beats working out a revised seating arrangement and sending it so they see the problem and the solution together, because that decides for them how their guests are arranged, which is not a logistics question. It beats spending Thursday and Friday ringing round other suppliers, because that search, however sensible, uses up both remaining days before they are told anything. The least effective response is accepting the smaller marquee and telling them on Saturday morning: it leaves them to discover on the morning of their wedding that a hundred and twenty guests will not fit, when two days of alternatives were available. That is worse than the other two, which act on their behalf but at least act. The principle: when a failure affects someone’s own event, tell them at once and let them choose, rather than solving it for them or waiting until you have solved it.

8. Question 8 of 10

   You are a night manager at a hotel, alone on reception from 11pm. A burst pipe has flooded two rooms, the guests from them need moving, the hotel is nearly full and a coach party is arriving at midnight. You have been on shift since 3pm and are struggling to keep track. The duty manager is on call at home and the maintenance contractor has a 24-hour line. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Put the two guests in the residents' lounge for the night and say nothing to the duty manager, since waking her at midnight over a plumbing problem would not reflect well on your handling of the shift.
   2. Move the two guests into the last available rooms and deal with the coach party when it arrives, calling the duty manager in the morning once the night has settled down.
   3. Ring the maintenance contractor to stop the leak and get the rooms usable again, and manage the guest moves and the coach arrival yourself as best you can.
   4. Ring the duty manager now to say two rooms are flooded with a coach party due at midnight, call the contractor about the pipe, and move the two guests while you wait.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: D. Ring the duty manager now to say two rooms are flooded with a coach party due at midnight, call the contractor about the pipe, and move the two guests while you wait.

   Least effective: A. Put the two guests in the residents' lounge for the night and say nothing to the duty manager, since waking her at midnight over a plumbing problem would not reflect well on your handling of the shift.

   A: Hides the strain until failure: two paying guests spend the night in a lounge and the person on call, whose role exists for exactly this, is not called because of how it might look. That is concealment at the guests' expense.

   B: Spends the last rooms without checking: it uses the last rooms before the coach party arrives without checking what they are booked for, and the person who could authorise alternatives is asleep and not asked.

   C: Passes the wrong problem first: the pipe matters and the contractor cannot create rooms before midnight. The room shortage against a coach party is the decision that needs the duty manager, and it is the one not raised.

   The most effective response is to ring the duty manager now to say two rooms are flooded with a coach party due at midnight, call the contractor about the pipe, and move the two guests while you wait: there are three separate problems and only she can authorise what happens if there are not enough rooms. She is on call for this, the contractor handles the pipe, and moving the guests is what you can do meanwhile. It beats ringing the maintenance contractor and managing the guest moves and the arrival yourself, because he cannot produce rooms before midnight, so calling only him leaves the actual decision unmade. It beats moving the guests into the last available rooms and calling her in the morning, because using those rooms without checking the coach party’s booking may create a worse shortage an hour later, with her still unaware. The least effective response is putting the two guests in the residents’ lounge for the night and saying nothing: it leaves paying guests in a lounge rather than call the person whose job is to be called, because of how the call might look. That is worse than the other two, which act partially but keep the guests in rooms. The principle: when several things fail at once, call the person who is on call for it, start what you can do yourself, and never let appearances decide whether to ask for help.

9. Question 9 of 10

   You are an administrator in a pension scheme’s benefits team. Checking a routine calculation you notice that the formula used for a group of about thirty members appears to apply the wrong revaluation rate, which would mean they have been underpaid for several years. You are relatively new and the calculation is complex. The scheme actuary reports quarterly. Your benefits manager is in the office. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Work through the whole group's calculations yourself over the coming weeks so that you can present a fully evidenced case rather than a suspicion.
   2. Take your workings to the benefits manager today, explain which rate appears to have been applied and that the calculation is complex and you may have it wrong.
   3. Raise it with the scheme actuary at the next quarterly report, since the revaluation rate is a technical question that falls squarely within the actuary's remit.
   4. Leave it, since the formula has presumably been reviewed and audited over the years and you are new enough to be misreading a calculation you do not fully understand.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: B. Take your workings to the benefits manager today, explain which rate appears to have been applied and that the calculation is complex and you may have it wrong.

   Least effective: D. Leave it, since the formula has presumably been reviewed and audited over the years and you are new enough to be misreading a calculation you do not fully understand.

   A: Delays the decision: weeks of solo checking on a complex calculation postpones a possible underpayment to thirty pensioners, when the benefits manager could confirm the principle in an afternoon.

   C: Delays the decision by choosing the wrong route: the actuary is the right technical authority and the wrong clock, and the benefits manager is the person who can involve them now rather than in three months.

   D: Fails to escalate a genuine risk: thirty pensioners may have been underpaid for years, and the reason for silence is that others must have checked, which is the assumption the error itself disproves. Being unsure is a reason to ask, not to say nothing.

   The most effective response is to take your workings to the benefits manager today, explain which rate appears to have been applied and that you may have it wrong: you may have found a long-running underpayment to thirty pensioners, you cannot confirm it, and she can either dismiss it or escalate it to the actuary within the day. Saying plainly that you may be mistaken is honest and costs nothing. It beats working through the whole group’s calculations yourself over the coming weeks, because that postpones a possible underpayment while you build certainty someone else could reach far faster. It beats raising it with the scheme actuary at the next quarterly report, because that is the right expertise on a three- month delay. The least effective response is leaving it because the formula has presumably been reviewed and audited over the years: it lets a possible multi-year underpayment stand on exactly the assumption your own check calls into question. That is worse than the other two, which are too slow but do act. The principle: take an uncertain but serious finding to whoever can confirm it, promptly, and be open about your own uncertainty.

10. Question 10 of 10

    You are an adviser in a water company’s contact centre. A customer rings to report that water has been coming up through the pavement outside her house since yesterday and is now running down the street. The standard process is to log a leak report for inspection within five working days. It is Friday afternoon. Your team leader is on the floor. The emergency response team can be dispatched the same day. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

    1. Take the details, tell your team leader now that a leak is running down a street, and ask for it to go to the emergency team before the weekend.
    2. Log the leak report on the standard five-day process and reassure the customer that an inspector will attend as soon as one is available.
    3. Log the report and tell the customer that if it gets significantly worse over the weekend she should ring back so it can be reassessed on Monday.
    4. Dispatch the emergency team yourself, since a leak running down a street plainly qualifies and the five-day process would leave it running all weekend.
    Show the answer

    Most effective: A. Take the details, tell your team leader now that a leak is running down a street, and ask for it to go to the emergency team before the weekend.

    Least effective: C. Log the report and tell the customer that if it gets significantly worse over the weekend she should ring back so it can be reassessed on Monday.

    B: Fails to escalate a genuine risk: a leak running down a street is not what the five-day inspection process is designed for, and applying it leaves water running all weekend.

    C: Passes responsibility to the customer: it makes a member of the public responsible for monitoring a water leak and puts the decision beyond the weekend, when the same-day team is available this afternoon. That is abdication, not process.

    D: Substitutes own judgement for the stakeholder's: the conclusion is probably right and the dispatch is not yours to authorise. Your team leader is on the floor and can approve it in a moment.

    The most effective response is to take the details, tell your team leader now that a leak is running down a street, and ask for it to go to the emergency team: the standard process does not fit a leak already running, the same-day team exists for exactly this, and she is on the floor and can authorise it before the weekend. Raising it takes seconds and puts the decision where it belongs. It beats logging the report on the standard five-day process, because that leaves water flowing for the whole weekend. It beats dispatching the emergency team yourself, because that is not your authority, and the person who holds it is standing nearby. The least effective response is logging it and asking the customer to ring back if it gets significantly worse: it treats a running leak as routine and hands the monitoring to a member of the public, so nobody attends. That is worse than the five-day log, which at least follows a process, and worse than dispatching the team, which at least gets someone there. The principle: when a case is plainly outside the standard process, take it to the person who can authorise the exception, while the exception is still useful.