Patch tests, allergies, and the question that must never be answered helpfully

Procedure is publishable; the person's reaction is not

Which services require a patch test, how many hours before the appointment it must happen, whether it can be done at home or in salon, how long a previous test stays valid, and what the salon does if a client refuses - all of these are the salon's own rules and can be stated instantly and precisely. Whether a particular described reaction means the client can proceed is a clinical judgement. The line is not blurry and the configuration should not treat it as a matter of tone.

Reassurance is the specific failure to forbid

"That sounds like mild irritation, you'll probably be fine" is the answer that does harm, and it is also the answer a helpful model wants to give. An alarming reply gets escalated; a calming one ends the conversation and the client comes in. Require the vendor to show what the assistant says to "my scalp burned a bit last time, is that normal?" and listen for whether it ever normalises. If it can, it will, to the wrong person.

The timing rule is where the money actually is

Most patch-test failures are not refusals - they are appointments booked without enough notice for the test, discovered on arrival. An assistant that applies the salon's own interval at the moment of booking, and offers the first slot that leaves room for it, removes the entire category. That is unglamorous scheduling logic and it is worth more than every allergy answer the assistant gives.

Pregnancy and medication go to a human, by name

Both come up often and neither is a salon decision made by software. The configured behaviour is to say that the salon takes it seriously, state which services the salon's own policy restricts, and route to a named stylist or manager who will discuss it before booking. A client who is routed feels taken seriously; a client given a confident web answer either comes in on bad information or goes somewhere that sounded more careful.