A request, a flight, and two missing answers.
A complete illustrative decision memo. Fictional scenario, rounded figures and aliases — not a paid client case.
The situation before the review
Alex is in the United States and has been speaking with a partner in the Philippines for ten weeks. They have had video calls but have not met. Alex previously sent $300. A new request for $650 arrives, described as an urgent household expense. Alex is also considering a first trip in three weeks. The request's itemised breakdown and the meeting schedule are not yet agreed.
This scenario was constructed to demonstrate the deliverable. There is no real client, no hidden interview and no measured result. It should not be read as a typical experience of a country or gender.
The exact decision
Should Alex send another $650 and make $1,620 of travel bookings before the missing information is clarified?
Timeline
| Relative date | Event | Evidence status |
|---|---|---|
| Ten weeks ago | First contact | Client statement in the scenario |
| Six weeks ago | Video calls begin | Client statement; not identity certification |
| Four weeks ago | $300 sent | Assumed transfer record for this example |
| This week | $650 requested for household expenses | Request stated; need unverified |
| In three weeks | Proposed first meeting | Dates discussed, schedule not confirmed |
Exposure map
| Item | Amount | Commitment status |
|---|---|---|
| Earlier transfer | $300 | Already spent; do not use it to justify the next payment |
| New request | $650 | Not sent |
| Flight estimate | $980 | Not booked; actual fare conditions unknown |
| Accommodation estimate | $420 | Not booked; actual cancellation conditions unknown |
| Local travel and other costs | $220 | Estimate, not a quote |
| New commitments considered | $2,270 | $650 + $980 + $420 + $220 |
| Total including earlier transfer | $2,570 | Historical spend plus proposed commitments, not an amount all currently at risk |
All figures are fictional USD assumptions. Refundable amounts are unknown, so the memo does not invent a net-loss figure. Fees and contingencies still need separate entries.
Facts, statements and unknowns
Facts within the scenario: a request has been made; Alex is considering the listed expenditure; there is no agreed first-meeting schedule.
Statements: the money is for an urgent household need; the proposed meeting dates will work. These explanations may be reasonable but are not independently established.
Unknowns: the expense breakdown, the real deadline, what happens if Alex does not pay, the independent accommodation plan, and which bookings can be changed or cancelled.
Interpretations to avoid: that the request proves dishonesty; that video calls prove every claim; that a previous payment creates an obligation to send more.
Five priority questions
- What exactly does the $650 cover? Request a simple itemised explanation, not private medical or identity documents. A useful answer explains the amount and the need; it does not establish motives.
- Who set the deadline, and what happens if I pause? Distinguish the other person's stated urgency from a deadline verified with a relevant source.
- What other ways are available to address the expense? This clarifies dependency and alternatives without making Alex responsible for solving the entire situation.
- What time and public place have we both agreed for the first meeting? Establish a practical plan before committing non-refundable travel costs.
- Can I manage my accommodation, transport and return independently? Identify the parts Alex can control even if the meeting changes.
Three respectful scripts
Pause
“I care about what is happening, and I want to understand the full request before I commit. I am pausing the transfer while we clarify the amount and deadline. Let’s discuss those tomorrow.”
Clarify
“Can you walk me through the items included in the $650 and which part is due first? Please do not send sensitive documents. A clear explanation is what I need at this stage.”
Set a boundary
“I am keeping travel bookings in my own name and choosing accommodation I can manage independently. That gives us both room if the timing changes. I am also separating the trip budget from requests for financial support.”
Decision: WAIT
Pause the new transfer and non-refundable bookings. The FTC advises against sending money or gifts to someone you have not met in person; a reassuring call does not replace that guidance. For the travel decision, obtain a mutually agreed meeting plan and review independent transport, accommodation and current official travel advice.
GO condition for travel planning, not for the transfer: a clear meeting arrangement, checked current travel requirements and cancellation terms, and a plan Alex can afford and carry out without depending on the meeting taking place. It is not a declaration that the relationship is genuine or the trip risk-free.
STOP condition for this commitment: pressure to surrender account access, forward money for someone else, abandon an independent return plan, or proceed despite a material unresolved inconsistency. If suspected fraud or immediate danger is involved, use the bank, relevant reporting service or emergency channel rather than waiting for a sprint.
Next 48 hours
- Today: list the unanswered questions and stop adding commitments.
- Tomorrow: discuss the expense explanation and proposed meeting arrangements calmly.
- Before booking: check the actual fare and hotel terms, current official destination information and independent backup plan.
- Revisit: only when the material information changes. Do not convert the passage of two days into automatic approval.
What changed in the document
Before: “I have already sent money, the flight may get more expensive, and I feel I must decide now.” After: “I have a $2,270 proposed commitment, two separate decisions and specific missing answers.” This is an illustrative before/after framing, not an observed customer outcome.
Review call agenda
Twenty minutes: confirm the exposure arithmetic; identify the question most likely to change the action; rehearse one script; agree the next review point. No interrogation of the partner, no surprise upsell.
Sources and limits
FTC: What to know about romance scams, checked 4 October 2026. US State Department: Philippines travel information, link checked on that date; no entry-rule or safety-level claim is reproduced here. The calculations and scenario are original illustrative material.