A municipal call center identifies when staff should use Researcher for multi-source municipal policy synthesis. Which scenario fits?

Municipal call-center staff should use Researcher when the job is synthesizing guidance across multiple policy sources into a grounded long-form investigation. That scenario matches Researcher: several municipal policies, procedures, or reference documents must be combined into a coherent, evidence-oriented answer rather than a grounded instant chat answer that needs speed over depth, a multi-workbook trends report that is analytics work, or a multi-transcript meeting follow-up that is facilitation work.

Synthesizing guidance across multiple policy sources into a grounded instant chat answer fails as a Researcher use case—an instant chat format demands immediate brevity, not grounded long-form investigation. Synthesizing monthly call trends across multiple workbooks into a grounded analytical report fails similarly; multi-workbook trend analysis is an analytics task, not long-form policy synthesis. Synthesizing discussion across multiple huddle transcripts into a grounded meeting follow-up fails because it is a Facilitator task, not Researcher, and requires meeting synthesis rather than policy research capability.

Exam caveat: Call-center agents must still follow disclosure rules and cite approved sources; Researcher assistance does not authorize inventing policy or bypassing supervisor review for resident-facing answers. AB-900 focuses on recognizing when Researcher fits versus trivial tasks.

Operational check: Tag call-center work items as “multi-source policy synthesis” versus “instant chat answer” versus “multi-workbook trends report” versus “multi-transcript meeting follow-up,” and verify only the synthesis queue is routed to Researcher with approved knowledge sources.