What attendance information can you share?
You are a volunteer at a fictional language exchange.
The question
A partner requests attendance by session. The sign-in log includes names. You can ask what the partner needs and check with the coordinator before sending a report.
The coordinator can approve external totals. External reports cannot contain a count for a group of fewer than five people.
“Decide what to check and say what you can send.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: What would you ask first?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Ask what decision the data supports
The strong move. It can uncover a simpler report that meets the need.
Send the log because attendance was requested
Tempting, but it misses something. The log includes names the request did not ask for.
Refuse all counts
Tempting, but it misses something. The stated process allows an approved total.
See how a strong candidate says it
“What decision do you need the attendance numbers for? I can check which totals we are allowed to send.”
Why it works: The purpose helps you decide whether the requested detail is needed.
Step 2: Who can approve the report?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Delete the names and send every row
Tempting, but it misses something. The count for a small group may still fall below the minimum.
Check detail and approval with the coordinator
The strong move. It uses the authority and rule supplied in the brief.
Ask the partner to keep the log private
Tempting, but it misses something. An informal promise does not change the reporting rule.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would ask the coordinator to approve the level of detail and check that every count meets the reporting minimum.”
Why it works: Removing names alone does not make all counts eligible under this rule.
Step 3: Which total can you send?
One session had one person. The other two had six and nine. All attendees were distinct. The partner says a weekly total is enough. The coordinator approves it.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Send the three session counts
Tempting, but it misses something. One count is below the reporting minimum.
Send only the approved weekly total
The strong move. It meets the purpose and avoids the restricted detail.
Send just the two larger session counts
Tempting, but it misses something. It omits attendance from one session and fails to answer the weekly question.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I can send the weekly total of 16. The partner says that is enough, and the coordinator approved it.”
Why it works: The total covers distinct attendees. A per-session breakdown would include a count below five.
Step 4: Reply to the partner
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Send the approved number and period
The strong move. It answers the request at the permitted level.
Include the three rows as context
Tempting, but it misses something. The approval covers the total alone.
See how a strong candidate says it
“We had 16 distinct attendees this week. If you need a different breakdown, tell me what decision it supports and I’ll check what we can share.”
Why it works: Give the approved period and number. Route any new request through the same process.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Send the approved weekly total of 16 without the session rows.
- Because
- The recipient only needs the weekly figure. A session count falls below the stated minimum.
- What would change it
- If the partner needs a different breakdown, ask the coordinator to assess that specific request.
Common traps
- Assume removing names is sufficient.
- Treat approval for one total as approval for further detail.
Check your answer
- I checked the purpose.
- I found the owner of the rule.
- I checked the minimum.
- I shared only the approved total.
Last reviewed Nov 11, 2026