FORMAT BIBLE — THE EXTRA STEP
Original proposed teaching series; fictional development examples, no episodes produced.
Audience: small-business operators and people designing tools for them.
Promise: understand the consequential decision hidden inside one everyday workaround.
Medium: 6–8 minute authored observational film. Length is a pilot constraint, not an industry rule.
Engine: object -> observed workaround -> competing explanations -> actual decision -> modest test -> unresolved boundary.
Host: curious observer, able to ask the operator to demonstrate rather than provide a motivational answer.
Access: operator and affected colleague/customer, permission to show the process, redacted/recreated records. Never substitute reconstruction for unlabelled observation.
Visual language: readable objects, actions and consequences; avoid generic office B-roll.
Sound: intelligible dialogue; capture room tone and process sounds without exposing private conversations.
Pilot: print proof approval. Two PDFs labelled final, a green tick and a phone call.
Open question: who can release which version for printing?
Evidence needed: observe a real job, identify who made the decision, trace a late change. Obtain permissions before recording.
Map: 0:00 object/action; 0:40 operator explains call; 1:40 compare two explanations; 3:00 follow decision authority; 4:30 test named version/owner; 6:00 what remains unknown. These are proposed editorial beats, not footage timecodes.
Limits: no claim that one software change makes every shop faster; no invented outcome.
Six premises:
1. Print proof — approval action versus release authority; observe versions and a real release decision.
2. Bicycle repair — a free appointment slot versus a missing spare part; follow one promised repair.
3. Design files — final-final filenames versus authority to replace the deliverable; trace a corrected export.
4. Support handover — complete notes versus a next owner; follow an unresolved case across a shift.
5. Renovation — approved photo versus approved physical finish; compare sample, lighting and actual decision.
6. Training binder — written procedure versus who may update it; observe a changed process and the next trainee.
Pilot review:
Can an unfamiliar viewer state the decision? Record their actual words.
Did the film show observable evidence, or only opinions? Log each gap.
Can an operator disagree with the explanation? Retain the strongest counterexample.
Were all sensitive artifacts cleared or recreated and labelled?
What access, edit and review work did production really require?
Decision: commission / revise and retest / stop, with reason, owner and date.
Do not set a universal success percentage from this worksheet.

BLANK FORMAT
Audience and situation:
Recurring promise:
Medium and length constraint:
Episode engine:
Host role:
Source of new stories:
Six distinct premises and evidence access:
Pilot uncertainty:
Required contributors/permissions:
What is explicitly out of scope:
Production owner and resources:
Review questions and decision owner:
What would make us stop: