The client says an excluded item was always included. How should we respond?
Scope interpretation disputeCompare the request with the agreed documents and contemporaneous decisions. Resolve ambiguity through evidence and a documented commercial decision rather than arguing from memory.
What to do now
- Locate the current scope and exclusions
- Identify the exact disputed outcome
- Assess impact and reasonable options
- Record the authorized resolution
When to escalate
Escalate when
The dispute affects payment, contractual obligations, or material delivery commitments.
Who decides
The scope owner and authorized sponsor
Example
A requested mobile feature is compared with the signed scope before the parties agree whether it is a change.
Mistake to avoid
Treating a disagreement as automatically bad faith.
Prevent a repeat
Review ambiguous requirements and unresolved acceptance conditions before the affected work begins.
Suggested ApprovedFlow setup
- Projects
- Tasks
- Documents
- Approvals
Keep the agreed scope and acceptance evidence with the project; record any proposed change and its decision separately. See the platform
Related cases
- The client wants every request treated as a defect. How do we distinguish changes?Defect-versus-change ambiguity
- How do we prove every requirement was delivered and tested?Missing requirements traceability
- The vendor says knowledge transfer is not included. How do we respond?Missing supplier transition scope
- How do we distinguish a clarification from a scope change?Requirement interpretation boundary