Muscatine

Could and should, explained.  In the context with which you used the word "could", it implies the same meaning as the word "should".  In other words, the phrase you posted means: You believe they (the reps) should get the answers.

   A simple analogy:   When I used to tell my kids "Could you please close the door?"  It, of course, means I believe they "should" close the door.  I could have used either phrase and meant the same thing, of course.   So did you.

It's not the same thing.   Your kids could answer your question "NO" and be grammatically correct but they know you'd knock hell out of them if they answered that way so they reinterpret what you said and close the door. 

Don't take that dunce cap off.  In fact, pull it down tighter, and don't you budge from that corner little man/woman/thing.

I haven't put it on yet.   Not even in my possession.

The teacher:  "A simple analogy:   When I used to tell my kids "Could you please close the door?"  It, of course, means I believe they "should" close the door.  I could have used either phrase and meant the same thing, of course.   So did you."

The dunce:  "It's not the same thing.   Your kids could answer your question "NO" and be grammatically correct but they know you'd knock hell out of them if they answered that way so they reinterpret what you said and close the door."

You are trying to sidestep the obvious again Malodery!  Enough of your weak  attempts at gobble dee gook.

It's too simple, even for you, to miss.

We all know that in the context that you used the words, "should" and "could", they are interchangeable.

All the nonsense about knocking my kids around, and whether they actually did close the door or not, has no relevance to the question at hand.   By the way, I never had to knock my kids around.  Is that how you were brought up and how you deal with your brats?   I think psychologists call it transference when you accuse me of something you feel guilty about.