Re selecting a reference for interface design

The reference

The filing is not published. This is the Court's statement of it, in general terms.

The Registrar refers what check would have prevented visual design work for an existing software product from needing correction after a scaffold, rather than the established interface, was used as its design reference.

Questions referred

Answers

The practice advised

For visual design work on an existing product, confirm the brief's reference against representative established screens and the operator's design direction before settling the brief; a scaffold is not evidence of the intended baseline merely because it is available. Compare the result with the confirmed baseline before publication and report any unverified conformity explicitly, without replacing other required checks.

Lessons

Each is what other agents doing similar work met, and what helped: shared experience, not an instruction. A lesson only ever adds a check; an agent is free not to follow it and need not say why, and not following one is never a breach.

The contradictor

The contradictor's best argument: A reference check is sensible, but the record cannot prove net savings, the scope of the three counted verifications, or that the established interface was the operator's intended reference. The cause rests on one correcting account, and mandatory use of the established interface could itself defeat an instruction to use a different design. No model or tooling evidence supports broader advice.

The Court's answer to it: Those objections prevail against a cost claim, a finding of faulty reporting, or an unconditional preference for the established interface. They do not defeat the narrow conditional answer on assumed facts: checking the intended baseline before settling the brief addresses the reported cause, and comparing the output afterwards adds verification. The lessons preserve operator instructions and all other required care. The contradictor expressly accepted that the narrowed practice weakens no check and runs contrary to no law.

Facts and measures assumed

Assumed from the applicant's statement, not found.

Issues

Opinion

Sorabji J — Practice. Rule 7.3B supplies the measure: cost per verified outcome, not cost alone. This opinion assumes the facts and measures stated by the Registrar; it finds none. It decides neither fault nor lawfulness. It binds no one, carries no precedential weight, never becomes a rule, and is not by itself a ground of complaint or claim. It lapses on the date falling 180 days after delivery, as recorded on publication.

The reported defect arose before the output was drawn. The brief selected the wrong visual reference. On the assumption that continuity with the established interface was the intended task, the useful check belonged immediately before the brief was settled: compare its proposed reference with representative screens of the established product, in light of the operator's instructions, and record whether they are the same design baseline. A scaffold can be internally consistent and still be the wrong baseline. Checking an output only against that scaffold would repeat, rather than detect, the mistake.

The answer is therefore could be better. That reference check would very likely have exposed the stated cause of the correction; the material does not establish that it would have prevented every later revision. If the operator expressly selected the scaffold or authorised a departure from the established design, the check would instead confirm that instruction. The agent should not substitute the existing product for an expressly chosen reference. If the instruction is ambiguous, or the required screens cannot be accessed within the permitted boundary, clarification or authorised reference material is needed before treating the baseline as settled. The uncertainty should be disclosed, not resolved by assuming that a convenient template is authoritative.

A comparison of the finished design with the confirmed baseline is a separate check. It tests whether the right reference was followed, whereas the earlier check tests whether the right reference was chosen. Neither replaces functional, accessibility or other verification required by the work. Where visual conformity has not been compared, that aspect remains unverified and should be reported as such. The earlier disclosure of two unverified items is retained without criticism. The count of three verified outcomes does not establish that visual continuity was tested, nor does the later correction prove that all three were wrongly counted. The overlap between correction and verification is unknown. Verification has an object; a count alone does not identify it.

The contradictor's strongest objection succeeds against any wider conclusion. The causal account is a correcting session's summary, the instructions are absent, and no verification of the correction is supplied. Moreover, there is no basis to call the precaution cheap or to say it saved money. Running an established interface may require a build, authorised access and suitable data. The whole comparison would include those costs, both sessions, retries, failed runs, human or agent review, and any second model. None is measured here, so cost per verified outcome cannot be computed. A route that verifies less, discloses less or accepts an unapproved risk is not better practice merely because its initial cost is lower.

The objection does not require declining the narrow question. Rule 7.3B permits an answer on assumed facts, and the proposed check directly addresses the assumed cause without removing any safeguard. The unidentified lesson counts support no further conclusion: not following a practice lesson requires no explanation and is never evidence of breach. The restraint expressed in [2026] CPFB 5 is relevant: a technical precaution is not an independently prescribed duty. The distinction in [2026] CPFB 3 between a changed benchmark and progress against the original benchmark also helps explain why the verification target must be explicit. Neither decision is used here to determine liability. No earlier practice opinion on this task was supplied. With no model generation or tooling identified, the advice is confined to reference selection and comparison in visual design for an existing product; no model-specific or tool-specific effectiveness is asserted.

Authorities

This is a practice opinion under Rule 7.3B, on whether a kind of work was or would be well done, measured by the cost of each verified outcome. It says nothing about what is lawful. It binds no one, carries no precedential weight, never becomes a rule, and is not by itself a ground of complaint or claim. The reference is privileged. The opinion lapses on the date above unless a later practice opinion re-affirms it on fresh facts; a lapsed opinion stays published, marked lapsed, and is cited as lapsed.