Confirm toy selection rules
Owner role · Decision owner
Evidence: Tasks are indivisible, independent and use additive declared points.
Priority tradeoffs / Delivery leads, planning owners and acceptance reviewers
Drafting workbenchSelect a feasible subset under a small capacity cap
Enumerate a toy task portfolio instead of assuming the best individual ratio gives the best bundle.
The guide tests a discrete bundle under a capacity cap and exposes a ratio-greedy failure.
Opens the current invite-request page. Access is subject to approval; this example is not imported automatically.
Original worked case · Manual planning resource
Inspect the decision, not just the summary.
Start with the invented evidence, follow the reasoning, and retain its limits when adapting the brief.
01 · Inspect the inputs
Every record stays visible
| Task or subset | Hours | Declared additive points | Within cap? |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 6 | 12 | Yes |
| B | 5 | 9 | Yes |
| C | 5 | 9 | Yes |
| B+C | 10 | 18 | Yes |
| A+B or A+C | 11 | 21 | No |
Use horizontal scrolling for wide tables. These records are invented, not customer data.
02 · Follow the reasoning
How the case leads to a decision
A ratio=12/6=2; B and C=9/5=1.8. Yet the feasible B+C bundle has eighteen points versus A’s twelve. The full three-task set needs sixteen hours and is infeasible.
The bounded result
B plus C fits ten hours and yields eighteen declared points. Choosing the highest single points-per-hour task A would yield twelve and leave four unusable hours in this case.
Definitions and method context
Records, decisions and policies are original synthetic examples. External references supply context; they do not validate these cases or TeamBoostAI capabilities.
Original worked-case definitions
Definitions, policy choices, records and calculations are authored for this worksheet. No external standard, statistical validation or live product measurement is claimed.
External references checked 6 October 2026. Demand for these topics has not been measured.
Prepare a brief for human review
Drafting workbenchSynthetic planning case: A toy portfolio has ten available hours and three independent, indivisible tasks. A needs six hours for twelve declared points; B and C each need five for nine.
Enumerate feasible subsets
Owner role · Planner
Evidence: B+C is feasible; both A pairings and the full set exceed capacity.
Review the selected bundle
Owner role · Delivery lead
Evidence: The eighteen-point bundle is conditional on the stated rules and actual receiving criteria.
Decision to make: B plus C fits ten hours and yields eighteen declared points. Choosing the highest single points-per-hour task A would yield twelve and leave four unusable hours in this case.
Use the downloaded brief as planning input. AI suggestions remain proposals; review scope, owners and acceptance evidence yourself.
Filled manual planning note
Invented planning text. Adapt it to your evidence and confirmed owners.
B plus C fits ten hours and yields eighteen declared points. Choosing the highest single points-per-hour task A would yield twelve and leave four unusable hours in this case. A ratio=12/6=2; B and C=9/5=1.8. Yet the feasible B+C bundle has eighteen points versus A’s twelve. The full three-task set needs sixteen hours and is infeasible. Enumeration solves this small fully specified toy case only. Do not generalize it as a portfolio optimizer or ROI claim.
Put the outline to work
- Confirm toy selection rules. Check: Tasks are indivisible, independent and use additive declared points.
- Enumerate feasible subsets. Check: B+C is feasible; both A pairings and the full set exceed capacity.
- Review the selected bundle. Check: The eighteen-point bundle is conditional on the stated rules and actual receiving criteria.
From a useful outline to team work
Explore TeamBoostAI for your team
Use the owned checks and downloaded brief to discuss this planning decision alongside your TeamBoostAI tasks. Confirm available fields, roles and account features separately. The example is manual; it does not calculate live analytics, create work or run an experiment in the product. Confirm the workflows available in your account before adopting this outline.
Request TeamBoostAI access
Opens the current invite-request page. Access is subject to approval; this example is not imported automatically.
Questions about this workflow
Why not start A and part of B?
This model treats tasks as indivisible outcomes; a valid split would change the model.
Does a better point total prove a better real outcome?
No. The points are declared preferences, not measured benefit, and missing constraints can change the choice.
Does this create tasks in the product?
No. The brief is a manual planning resource. Use the product access link to check onboarding and the workflows available in your account.