Fable
The clerk who copies from the file versus the clerk who can hold a conversation
The district office in the south of the city set up a consultation window. Common people came with questions, and the clerk could answer only according to the files in the cabinet. The first clerk was very cautious: whatever the file said, he copied it, not even daring to change the wording. Others said he was reliable, and he guarded himself by that standard.
One day someone asked whether a shop sign could extend beyond the street eaves. The clerk flipped to a page about sign color regulations, carefully copied three paragraphs, and noted the source at the end. The visitor was even more confused after listening, because he had asked about position, not color. The clerk did not make anything up, but did not solve the problem either.
The second clerk was very good at listening to people. He heard three words outside the street eaves and immediately explained the passage width, neighborhood complaints, and approval process, and the visitor nodded repeatedly. But one of them, "no hanging during the rainy season," was not in the files; it was just a custom he had heard elsewhere. The words were very relevant, but there was no evidence.
Both clerks were called by the shopkeeper for a review. The first was unconvinced, saying every sentence of his could be found in the files; the second was also unconvinced, saying what the visitor needed was precisely his answer. The shopkeeper had them divide their answers into two columns: one marking the corresponding file, the other marking the corresponding question.
The result was clear. The first one had a source for every sentence, but only a small passage touched the signboard location; the second one answered the question in most paragraphs, but a few sentences couldn't be traced to any file. One sent the user away with the right materials, the other sent the user away with possibly wrong advice.
The office later changed its process. The clerk first confirmed the core of the question, then took only the files that could answer that core; when writing the answer, every key judgment had to trace back to the materials. Where the materials did not cover something, he would rather say the files do not record it than patch in hearsay as if it were a rule.
There were fewer arguments at the counter. People did not just want an answer that sounded smooth, nor a pile of copied text that missed the question. A reliable answer must stand on the materials and land on the question. The manager also required the clerks to preserve the courage to leave blanks. If the file could answer only half, they should state clearly the part that could be answered and leave the gap for manual verification, rather than filling the gap with facts just to appear thorough. In the weekly review, they divided wrong answers into two baskets: off-topic and unsupported, so that fixes would not become chaotic. Once the two baskets were separated, both those retrieving files and those writing answers knew what each needed to change.