Main idea

A condo board member runs into the site foreman in the courtyard: the aerial lift for building C has been pushed back, maybe by two weeks, maybe more. This information exists nowhere but in his memory. That's not a failing: a site foreman says in a courtyard what he would never put in an email, a property manager says on the phone what he wouldn't put in the minutes.

With nowhere to go, verbal information ends up one of two ways: lost, or repeated until it passes for a certainty. The third way is to let it into the case as it is, with what you need to know what to do with it — where it comes from (the site foreman, verbally), when (last Tuesday), its status (reported, to be confirmed in writing). Dictated in two sentences on a phone, it becomes situated.

Why it matters

A large share of a case's useful information travels through the hallways. A system that accepts only official written material deprives itself of exactly what arrives first; a system that accepts it without a status turns it into fact.

The status also carries the next action: "to be confirmed in writing" already says what to ask for.

Nuances and limits

Verbal information can be garbled from the very first transcription; the status says it's fragile, it doesn't guarantee it was heard correctly.

Open questions

• At what point should verbal information that is never confirmed leave the case rather than stay in it as fragile?