On day twelve, Asha entered the formal response room carrying a folder much thinner than the one she had taken to Imara the first time. She no longer needed a pile of paper. She needed a checklist.
Kelvin and Brenda sat on one side of the table. Zuri, Tessa and Juma sat with Asha on the other. Between them lay Ladha Safi’s draft *Consumer Communication Improvement Plan*.
Asha read it to the end.
“There are only two action bullets.”
“There are several commitments inside the paragraphs,” Brenda said.
“A commitment without a date is not an action.”
Juma opened his copy. “And my old-pack stock?”
“We will credit qualifying stock,” Kelvin said.
“What qualifies?”
“Batches inside the transition range.”
“Where is the range in the document?”
Brenda made a note.
Tessa divided the discussion into four remedy areas: consumer, retailer, packaging and training.
For consumers, Asha wanted a clear refund or store-credit path for people raising communication complaints during the identified campaign period. Brenda objected to open-ended refunds without proof of purchase.
“Most people do not keep a receipt for bread,” Juma said.
Kelvin replied, “Without proof, anyone can claim.”
Tessa proposed alternatives: retailer purchase records, package photos, loyalty records or reasonable retailer verification, with disputed cases routed to a dedicated contact.
“And the language must not require a consumer to prove medical harm,” Asha said. “That is not what this complaint is about.”
Brenda changed the wording to: *consumer concern regarding product communication during the identified campaign period.*
“Better,” Zuri said.
For retailers, Juma wanted stock compensation. Tessa separated that from public clarity.
“Inventory-transition credit cannot be conditional on a retailer pretending the communication complaint never existed.”
Kelvin said credits normally accompanied settlement.
“Then structure this as inventory transition, not damages,” Tessa replied.
Brenda considered it. “That can work.”
Asha moved to the retailer-guidance paragraph. It said retail partners would be “reminded to present products accurately.”
“This makes the problem sound like retailer forgetfulness,” Asha said.
“Retailers did add their own claims,” Kelvin replied.
“Mti Market did, and we documented it. But reps also had positioning language. The new rule has to control both sides.”
Zuri proposed specific wording: sales coaching and shelf materials would use product descriptors consistent with the current package version; retailers would receive version-dated comparison guidance and instructions to remove superseded materials.
“That is very operational,” Brenda said.
“That is why it can be measured,” Asha replied.
Training was more sensitive. Ladha Safi would not accept “health halo” as an official policy phrase. Asha did not insist on a confession the evidence did not support.
“You do not need to write that the company had a policy by that name,” she said. “Write the new control: a rep should not use broader positioning than the current package or approved technical sheet can support.”
Zuri added that reps should be trained to distinguish general positioning from specific nutrition claims.
Kelvin agreed.
Then Brenda placed a printout of the revised package proof on the table. The green palette remained, but the product descriptor was clearer and the ambiguous front emphasis had been reduced. The information hierarchy on the side panel had improved.
“Formula?” Asha asked.
“Unchanged.”
“SKU?”
“Still the same during transition, but the artwork version will appear in retailer guidance.”
“Old stock?”
“Sell-through under neutral guidance, with credit options for retailers who cannot use it.”
Zuri said that was reasonable if the consumer-facing distinction remained clear.
Asha had no evidence-based reason to demand destruction of safe stock simply for dramatic punishment. The aim had always been clarity.
Tessa tapped the document. “Dates.”
The company tried to return to softer language: “approximately two weeks,” “in due course,” “as soon as practical.”
Asha rejected each phrase.
“Digital guidance can go out before printed cards. The interim notice you promised—was it sent?”
Brenda produced the email record. It had gone out, though some retailers had entered the distribution list later than others.
“Fine,” Asha said. “Final version-dated digital guidance within five days. Printed replacement on a stated date. Pack rollout window. Consumer contact active immediately.”
Kelvin laughed tiredly. “You prepared that line?”
“What line?”
“Remedies without dates.”
Asha shook her head. “I am just tired of reading documents that sound like intention instead of action.”
They spent another hour assigning an owner and date to each commitment: packaging team, retailer support, sales training and consumer desk. Asha asked for a six-week monitoring period. Kelvin agreed to a formal check-in and a summary of complaints and credits.
Juma still wanted separate compensation for sales losses.
“You can negotiate that separately,” Tessa told him. “Do not make public clarity depend on one commercial number.”
Near the end of the meeting, Brenda received an email.
“Artwork has sent the first final proof.”
“Open it,” Asha said.
The revised package appeared on the screen. Asha compared it against the communication checklist rather than against a desire to see the brand punished. The descriptor was clearer. Retailer instructions required obsolete shelf materials to be removed.
Kelvin said, “This is the direction.”
Asha replied, “And now it is something we can monitor.”
The final email contains an attachment named `Safina_Afya_Pack_Revision_Final_Proof`.
---