A trial with an end date

Text A: an original contemporary practice extract.

I hired a piano for three months to find out whether I would practise regularly. The first month was full of enthusiasm, and I began imagining the instrument permanently in the room. The agreement nevertheless had an end date. I kept a brief record of when I played and what made a session possible.

Near the end, I reviewed ordinary weeks as well as the exciting first one. I had enjoyed playing, but the piano’s place blocked a cupboard I used every day. I arranged its return and looked for another way to practise. The trial had not failed because I chose not to keep the instrument. Its limit gave me a point at which pleasure, space and routine could be considered together rather than allowed to become a permanent arrangement by default.

Text B: an original contemporary practice extract.

The bookshop lent part of its window to a local craft group for a month. The group hoped the display might become regular, and the shop agreed to review it on the final weekend. Members noted the time spent replacing labels and asked staff which questions customers raised.

The review showed that visitors liked the objects, but maintaining them took more staff attention than expected. We agreed to shorter displays twice a year rather than keeping the window continuously. The month had produced useful information, not a duty to continue unchanged. Naming the review date at the start made it easier to discuss a smaller future arrangement without presenting that decision as a sudden withdrawal of support.

Both texts describe the arrangements for deciding what should happen after the trials.

What similarities do the arrangements for deciding what should happen after the trials share in these extracts? Use evidence from both texts to support your answer.