Rule: every Candid client case study must use the EXACT status of each workstream, not aspirational status

When writing a Candid Creative case study, every workstream must be described using its actual current status (live / in build / scoped / not started), not its aspirational status.

Why: the B&J case study makes this a structural risk — the marketing site is on a dev URL, the CRM is not built, the customer portal is not built. Calling any of these "launched" or "live" would be inaccurate and would expose Candid to reputational damage when a prospect probes. The honesty itself is part of the positioning we sell.

How to apply:

• For any workstream, source the status from a primary artifact (the engagement-scope KB entry or the repo) at the moment of writing — not from memory.
• For each KPI, label its source and confidence inline. See Rule: every KPI in a Candid case study must carry a source and a confidence label inline.
• When a workstream is in flight, write "in build" or "scoped" rather than "launched" — the case study reader is sophisticated enough to value honesty.
• The B&J critical-context-flags entry is the canonical worked example: B&J case study — critical overclaim guards (READ BEFORE WRITING).