FZP1 vs. EKP1: Which WGU C717 Task 2 Scenario Do I Have?

Reading Time: 5 minutes

FZP1 vs. EKP1: Which WGU C717 Task 2 Scenario Do I Have?

By Dan Palmer, MBA

Open any set of search results for “WGU C717 Task 2” and you’ll find two completely different scenarios sitting under the same course code; one built around a procurement manager choosing whether to accept a bid from a friend’s company, the other built around an employee overhearing a supervisor’s comments during a promotion decision. Neither Studocu nor Stuvia nor CliffsNotes tells you upfront which one you’re looking at. You find out by opening the document, reading three paragraphs, and realizing it doesn’t match your task instructions at all.

That’s not a content problem on their end so much as a labeling problem; WGU runs C717 Task 2 under at least two assessment codes, FZP1 and EKP1, and most uploaded student papers get tagged generically as “C717 Task 2” with no indication of which version they completed. Here’s how to figure out which one applies to you before you waste an hour reading the wrong scenario.

Where to actually confirm your task code

Don’t guess from the scenario description alone — confirm it directly:

1. Open your Task 2 instructions PDF in the MyWGU student portal. The assessment code (FZP1 or EKP1) appears in the document header or footer, alongside the course code C717.
2. Check your Evaluation Report from Task 1, if you’ve already submitted it. The same assessment-code family typically carries through both tasks in a given course version.
3. Look at your course-of-study page. WGU periodically retires one task version and rolls out another as it revises course content; if your course of study was assigned recently, you’re more likely on the current version than an older one still circulating in cached UGC uploads.

The reason this matters isn’t pedantic. Task instructions, rubric wording, and word-count expectations genuinely differ between assessment-code versions of the same course, even when the underlying subject (employee rights and ethical responsibilities) stays conceptually similar. Studying from the wrong version’s sample doesn’t just risk incidental mismatch; it can lead you to structure your entire response around a scenario and rubric that isn’t the one grading you.

What tends to distinguish the two scenarios

Based on the pattern across dozens of publicly available submissions, the two most commonly circulated C717 Task 2 scenarios differ in their central ethical trigger:

The procurement/conflict-of-interest scenario centers on a manager deciding whether to accept a bid from a friend’s company, and asks students to analyze the ethical dilemma this creates around favoritism, trust, and the integrity of a competitive process; alongside a broader discussion of employee rights (safe workplace, freedom from retaliation, freedom from discrimination) and employer responsibilities (training, safe environment, fair treatment).

The promotion/overheard-conversation scenario centers on an employee up for promotion who overhears a supervisor’s comments to coworkers, raising questions about fairness in advancement decisions, confidentiality, and how ethical training programs are supposed to prevent exactly this kind of situation.

Both scenarios ultimately ask you to identify an ethical dilemma, connect it to employee rights and employer responsibilities, and often reference the annual ethics-training requirement as part of the employer’s responsibility set; which is part of why the two get conflated in search results despite being different prompts.

If your scenario doesn’t match either description above

WGU periodically revises task scenarios, so it’s entirely possible your specific task instructions describe a situation that doesn’t cleanly match either pattern above. If that’s the case, treat the two patterns here as a signal that assessment-code variation is normal for this course, not a sign you have something malformed; go back to your actual task instructions as the source of truth, and use whichever guide content matches your specific rubric line-by-line, not just the general subject area.

Third-Party Resources

• A Framework for Ethical Decision Making — Markkula Center for Applied Ethics — a widely cited framework for working through the “what’s the actual ethical issue here” step common to both scenario variants.
• Government Ethics: Conflicts of Interest — Markkula Center for Applied Ethics — directly relevant if your task instructions describe the procurement/bid-acceptance scenario.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I use a Task 2 sample built on the wrong scenario as a structural reference? The overall structure — identifying the dilemma, discussing rights and responsibilities, recommending a resolution — tends to transfer between scenario variants even when the specific facts don’t. Use it for structure, not content, and always check your own rubric for the specific criteria you’re being graded against.

Does WGU ever combine both scenarios into a single task? Not based on any submission pattern I’ve seen; the versions appear to be mutually exclusive assessment codes, not variations within one task. If your instructions reference elements of both, double check you’re not looking at two different students’ uploaded documents merged together, which happens more often than you’d expect in aggregator-style UGC listings.

Is one version harder than the other? Neither scenario is meaningfully more difficult in terms of the rubric’s actual requirements; both ask for the same underlying skills (identifying an ethical issue, applying rights/responsibilities analysis, proposing a resolution). The difficulty difference students report tends to come down to how comfortable they are with the specific scenario’s context, not the task’s structural demands.

For the complete rubric breakdown and a fully worked sample, see the WGU C717 Task 2 guide. If you’re still working out what kind of ethical dilemma your specific scenario represents, see How to Identify the Type of Ethical Dilemma in WGU C717 Task 2. For sourcing your analysis, see How to Cite Sources for WGU C717 Task 2.

Not sure which version you have even after checking your instructions? Message me on WhatsApp and I can help you figure it out.

Dan Palmer, MBA, writes WGU MBA course guides for Gradevia, focusing on the quantitative and analytics-heavy courses (C200, C207, C211, C213, C214, C717).