I see your perspective of offer, however weak the offer was. Again, I stand firm on mine as well. At the time of this incident, I'd completed over 20 of these types of shops. If the ultimate goal, regardless of ask vs do not ask, is to determine whether a banker offers materials, then that should be (1) a featured result, (2) an explicit acceptance mandate, however equivocating the offer and (3) acknowledgement of the narrative if it indicates any version of an offer. If the ultimate goal is taking materials regardless of ask vs do not ask, however weak or passive the offer, then that should be outlined as well. Considering that I have completed shops on a do not ask where the materials were not presented, I know that reception of materials is not the ultimate goal.
If the ultimate goal of a do not ask is an offering, however equivocating it is, and that information is included within the narrative, then credit is due.
I do a fair amount of banking and apartment shops and, for them, weak hints and equivocating are not the same as direct ask or offers. Reviewing the banking questions for this shop type reflect a more direct approach as well. Their questions are not vague or passive about banker's actions.
Frankly, I did not have to add that end of interaction quasi-offer. The blistering thing is had I not included one sentence, I would have been paid. If video playback was done, you would not see materials presented to me, nor would you see me turning down materials. It was because I was so detailed and explicit in my narrative about the non-offer offer as I was getting ready to exit that this is even an issue. None of the formal questions or survey answers resulted in this outcome. In other words, based on the questionnaire and survey, this would not even be a discussion and I would have been paid for my time, effort, and feedback. It was a subjective call based on my detailed narrative that resulted in this brouhaha.
If I'd explicitly violated terms, then this would have sat better with me. I don't want to feel like my commitment for thoroughness and details in my narratives will net me $0 for someone's subjective decision making when I'm asked to go out of my way to take a shop. Present it to the client. If they kick it back (which they wouldn't have), then it presents opportunity for further clarification of requirements. Otherwise, pay for the job completed as outlined.
Fortunately, there are tons more opportunities out there that I get to partake in that support my thorough and detail-oriented narratives without the hand of someone's willy nilly subjective punitive action.
Nonetheless, aside from this incident, my services are still requested by the MSC based on my historical quality submissions with them. I will not penalize them based on one unpleasant experience unless it becomes a pattern. Right now, I only accept shops from them that do not require narrative as I do not wish to risk having a repeat performance with this particular person for any reason. It left a sour taste with me. As a single working parent, I can't afford to subject myself to unnecessary loss in time, or money.
This can be a subjective business, I get that. Staff within MSCs have the ability to affect your payment. Conversely, I also have the ability to chose whether to further subject myself to that kind of exposure when I feel it is not warranted. It's not a big loss to me that others take these types of shops for this MSC if it means I protect my time and efforts. My lack of participation in this one area means others in my region can fulfill these shops. Win/Win as I see it.