Define the design scope
Silent video.

[0–6]
Find the actual problem • Unreadable marks and inconsistent proposals need different work. • Retain • Small-size problem? Review mark + variants • Proposal A · Service plan • Proposal B · Service plan • Different styles? Review rules + templates
The reviewed retain illustration sits beside a small-size review question. Separately, two invented proposal headings use different visual styles for the same service plan. The first problem calls for checking mark variants; the second may need type rules and templates while retaining the logo. Neither problem is assumed to describe a measured client result.

[6–12]
Compare deliverables • Package names do not define equivalent scope. • Identifying mark • Mark + arrangements • Visual system • Rules + named applications • New content • Types + quantities + review
Three equally weighted reviewed crops separate identifying mark, visual system and new content. Native scope questions ask for mark arrangements, rules and named applications, or production types, quantities and review. A package name does not establish equivalent deliverables or a price ranking.

[12–18]
Review what can stay • Keep recognisable elements when they support the use. • Retain • Check intended size + language variant • Suitable for use? Keep the recognisable asset • No automatic replacement or pass
The existing asymmetric mark remains unchanged while a connector leads to required-size and language checks. A second connector reaches the conditional decision to keep recognisable assets when they support the use. No automatic replacement or successful test is asserted.

[18–24]
Bound the brief • Name languages, applications and editable files. • One editable sales-proposal template • Arabic + English • Real service descriptions • Naming changes / extra applications: separate decisions
The hypothetical brief names one editable sales-proposal template, Arabic and English, and realistic editable service descriptions. Naming changes and extra applications remain separate decisions. This does not remove any existing creative-plan inclusions or imply a fixed-price offer.

[24–30]
Accept through use • Ask a colleague to create and export the agreed application. • Deliver • Verify • Export the agreed application • Acceptance pending: layout, files and access evidence
The colleague edits the delivered template, exports the agreed application and checks layout, files and actual access. The acceptance gate remains pending on that evidence. Missing rules or inaccessible files are recorded before sign-off; no accepted real-world outcome is claimed.