# Explain a standings tie from supplied event rules
More time on the field. Less time in the office.

Audience: tournament directors
Status: assisted explanation guide, not a live calculator or automatic advancement service.
Official event records and authorized director decisions remain authoritative.

## Outcome and inputs
Outcome: a traceable explanation of a resolved tie, or a clear unresolved-question report.
Inputs: confirmed results/version, staff-reviewed calculation, exact current event scoring and
ordered tiebreak rules, complete tied group, special cases and director review.
No universal points system or tiebreak sequence is supplied by this guide.

## Review scope
- Event/division/stage:
- Result cutoff/version:
- Provisional/disputed/missing results:
- Rule source/version and applicable sections:
- Staff-reviewed calculation/version:
- Complete tied team references:
- Director/reviewer:
If input status or applicable rules are unresolved, hold definitive wording.

## Rules-to-values record
| Step/criterion in supplied order | Exact rule reference | Group in scope | Staff-reviewed applicable values | Resolves tie? | Unknown/director question |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | |
Keep raw and adjusted values separate. Apply caps/adjustments only if explicitly specified.
Do not infer sanctions, restart rules or multi-team procedures.

## Five-step workflow
1. Freeze confirmed results and applicable rules. Never borrow another event's sequence.
2. Staff reconcile scores/calculation with supplied scoring rules. Missing adjustments/statuses
   remain unknown, not zero. Keep capped and raw goal difference distinct where applicable.
3. Follow the supplied criterion order for the complete tied group. Honor special/restart
   procedures only as supplied. Do not skip to a convenient criterion.
4. Draft starting tie -> rule reference -> reviewed values -> result/remaining uncertainty.
   Separate proposed ordering from confirmed director decision. Do not infer advancement.
5. Director checks full rules and calculation, approves a version or holds for clarification.
   Recalculate/review after changes. Publishing/notices/bracket edits are separate actions.

## Synthetic example (not real tournament rules)
Supplied illustrative facts: exactly two teams tied on six points.
Supplied next applicable criterion: goal difference, reference DEMO-R2.
Staff-reviewed applicable values: DEMO-A +3; DEMO-B +1.
Draft: Both teams are on six points. Under supplied DEMO-R2, the reviewed goal-difference
values order DEMO-A ahead of DEMO-B (+3 versus +1).
Limit: This does not establish qualification, seeding or advancement.
Different rules, more tied teams or changed results require a fresh review.

## Reusable explanation structure
Starting tie/group:
Applicable rule section and order:
Reviewed comparison values/source:
What this criterion resolves:
What remains unresolved:
Director decision/version (pending unless actually confirmed):
Separate verified consequences, if any (otherwise not established):

## Optional sanitized AI prompt
Using only supplied rules and the staff-reviewed anonymous calculation, draft an explanation.
Preserve exact rule references, criterion order and complete tied group. Distinguish raw and
adjusted values and do not invent missing statuses, rules, caps, sanctions or restart handling.
If ambiguous or incomplete, return a director question instead of an ordering.
Do not claim advancement, official approval or mathematical verification of unavailable data.
Do not publish standings, notify teams or edit brackets.
Rules/version: [paste approved excerpts plus special cases]
Confirmed result/calculation references: [paste anonymous reviewed values]
Tied group: [paste complete anonymous refs]
Return: source-linked explanation | unsupported assumptions excluded | unresolved questions.

## Approval and privacy checkpoint
- Director-approved version/date:
- Calculation reviewed by:
- Rule interpretation confirmed:
- Outstanding holds:
- Trigger for recalculation/review:
Use anonymous team references. Keep player identities, disciplinary narratives, private disputes,
contacts and credentials out of AI tools. Release only approved public information.
A well-written explanation does not itself constitute an official event decision.