Hey Antony.
Thank you for your clarification.
So VP created the concept of “parent pool” which doesn’t exist in the BPMN standard.
The question is why?
Isn’t “1” and “2” redundant? Because it seems to me that most of the time people name “1” and “2” the same. Also, if that’s the case, then why show “unspecified” when we don’t need to fill it?
As for how “2” and “3” became connected, the reason is a lot simpler. All you need to do, is to name “2” and after name “3” using the same exact name.
I was able to follow your suggestion to break the connection between the parent pool and the pool. However, the pool still as the “a” (auxiliar) reference. How do I get to the “master”?
Thank you!
