--- title: La Marie Beauty — Service Page Variants Scope Dispute type: article created: '2025-11-11' updated: '2025-11-11' source_docs: - raw/2025-11-11-la-marie-beauty-project-call-100818942.md tags: - scope-conflict - project-management - la-marie-beauty - woocommerce - bookly - square layer: 2 client_source: null industry_context: null transferable: true --- # La Marie Beauty — Service Page Variants Scope Dispute ## Overview An unresolved scope conflict emerged during the 2025-11-11 sync call over whether redesigning 81 service pages to support product variants constitutes new scope. Asymmetric and La Marie Beauty hold opposing positions, and the dispute was escalated to decision-makers on both sides without resolution on the call. This is a useful reference case for how variant complexity can be obscured during initial scoping when a CSV is used as the handoff artifact rather than the live system of record. --- ## The Conflict ### Asymmetric's Position: This is a scope increase - The original estimate was based on a **CSV file provided by La Marie Beauty**, in which each row represented a flat, individual service item — variants were not represented. - The work now required includes not just adding variant selectors, but **full service page redesigns**: new content, galleries, before/after images, and layout changes. - Estimated effort: **40+ hours** (assuming ~30 minutes per page across 81 pages, likely faster with templating but still significant). - Melissa (Asymmetric PM) acknowledged that Asymmetric had already begun absorbing some of this work before the scope question was formally raised. > *"It's just the full product page redesigns for all of them."* — Melissa Cusumano ### La Marie Beauty's Position: Variants are not new scope - Square's booking flow **already represented services as variants** before the project began (e.g., "Vampire Facial" with options for "Face," "Face + Neck," "Face + Neck + Décolleté"). - This structure was visible in Square's UI and surfaced in JSON API responses Chris shared during earlier Zapier debugging sessions (base service + array of variant objects). - Kimberly (La Marie Beauty PM) argued that the **programmatic concept of variants was always present in the source of truth** — Square — and that the CSV was an imperfect representation, not the authoritative spec. > *"The source of truth in this case, which has been Square throughout, that data was already represented as variants existing."* — Kimberly Gehrmann --- ## Key Nuances ### Variants vs. Enhancements Not all 81 service pages necessarily require the same treatment. Kimberly and Roxana (La Marie Beauty's service expert) need to sync separately to distinguish: - **True variants** — meaningfully different service options with distinct pricing, duration, or scope (e.g., face only vs. face + neck) - **Enhancements / add-ons** — optional upsells that don't constitute a separate service variant This distinction matters because it may reduce the actual number of pages requiring full redesign treatment. ### Content Volume Escalation Even if variant selectors themselves are considered in-scope, the **volume of new content** (galleries, before/after photos, expanded descriptions) attached to the redesigned pages is where Asymmetric sees the clearest scope expansion. The original service pages were minimal; the new template is substantially richer. ### The CSV Problem The root cause of the misalignment is that the CSV — not Square — was treated as the scoping artifact. When Roxana compiled the CSV, she was also actively updating content, meaning the CSV reflected a point-in-time editorial view rather than the structural reality of Square's data model. This is a process gap worth addressing in future projects: **scope estimates should reference the live system of record, not a derived export.** --- ## Status at Time of Call | Item | Status | |---|---| | Internal Asymmetric discussion (Melissa → Mark) | In progress | | La Marie Beauty internal discussion (Kimberly → Lisa) | Planned | | Kimberly + Roxana sync on variants vs. enhancements | Planned | | Resolution / agreed path forward | ❌ Unresolved | --- ## Action Items - **Melissa** → Discuss scope conflict and cost options with Mark (Asymmetric leadership) - **Kimberly** → Discuss with Lisa (La Marie Beauty) and align on their position - **Kimberly + Roxana** → Sync 1:1 to categorize each service: true variant vs. enhancement, and flag which pages require multiple photos/galleries vs. which are simpler - **Both sides** → Reconvene with findings to negotiate a middle path (e.g., partial scope absorption, phased delivery, or change order) --- ## Generalizable Lessons 1. **CSV handoffs obscure data structure.** When a client's system of record has relational or hierarchical data (variants, arrays, nested objects), a flat CSV will flatten that structure and create false simplicity in estimates. Always validate against the live system before scoping. 2. **Scope disputes are harder to resolve when work has already started.** Asymmetric had begun absorbing variant work before the conflict was formally raised. Early flag → early decision. 3. **Content volume is often the real scope driver, not the feature itself.** Adding a variant selector UI is small. Populating 81 pages with galleries, copy, and before/after images is not. Separate the two in estimates. 4. **Distinguish the source of truth from the working document.** The CSV was a working document. Square was the source of truth. These should not be conflated during scoping. --- ## Related - [[clients/la-marie-beauty/_index]] - [[meetings/2025-11-11-la-marie-beauty-project-call]] - [[knowledge/project-management/scope-management]]