# Compare contingency lead time with its trigger window

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic planning case: An external plan needs a fallback ready at the start of day 10. Activation takes three full days. Its first proposed trigger checks readiness at the start of day 9.

## Decision

A day-9 trigger would finish activation at day 12 under the supplied duration. The latest compatible start is day 7; whether a useful trigger can be observed then remains a separate question.

## Owned work

- Fix the clock convention
  - Owner role: Planner
  - Acceptance evidence: Start-of-day boundaries and the three-day activation duration are explicit.
- Check latest feasible activation
  - Owner role: Reviewer
  - Acceptance evidence: The latest start is day 7 with no duration reserve in this model.
- Validate trigger observability
  - Owner role: Risk owner
  - Acceptance evidence: An actual condition observable by day 7 or a revised deadline/route is required; unknown early evidence is not presumed.

## Workflow

1. Fix the clock convention. Check: Start-of-day boundaries and the three-day activation duration are explicit.
2. Check latest feasible activation. Check: The latest start is day 7 with no duration reserve in this model.
3. Validate trigger observability. Check: An actual condition observable by day 7 or a revised deadline/route is required; unknown early evidence is not presumed.

## Judgment

The toy clock excludes weekends, uncertainty and other work. No real fallback readiness is promised.


## Filled manual planning note

A day-9 trigger would finish activation at day 12 under the supplied duration. The latest compatible start is day 7; whether a useful trigger can be observed then remains a separate question. With continuous full-day duration, finish=start+3. Hence 9+3=12, while 10−3=7. Arithmetic identifies a timing requirement; it cannot invent an early observable warning. The toy clock excludes weekends, uncertainty and other work. No real fallback readiness is promised.


## Workflow questions

### Should we always activate at day 7?

Not necessarily. The response choice needs actual evidence, authority and costs; this is only a compatibility boundary.

### Does day 7 guarantee readiness?

No. It exactly fits the supplied duration without uncertainty or additional dependencies.

## Product connection

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 account availability before adopting this manual outline.

## Original worked case

Synthetic records, manual planning only. No account import or live analytics.

### Inspect the invented case records

Clock event | Day boundary | Implication
--- | --- | ---
Required fallback ready | Start of day 10 | Deadline
Proposed trigger | Start of day 9 | Three days ends at day 12
Latest compatible activation | Start of day 7 | Three days ends at day 10

### Reasoning

With continuous full-day duration, finish=start+3. Hence 9+3=12, while 10−3=7. Arithmetic identifies a timing requirement; it cannot invent an early observable warning.

### Bounded result

A day-9 trigger would finish activation at day 12 under the supplied duration. The latest compatible start is day 7; whether a useful trigger can be observed then remains a separate question.

### Distinct decision

This checks response lead time against the earliest useful observation, rather than simply adding scheduled work durations.

### Limits

The toy clock excludes weekends, uncertainty and other work. No real fallback readiness is promised.

### Definitions and method context

- GAO Schedule Assessment Guide — https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-16-89g — General schedule-model context. All records, local policies and arithmetic are original toy examples, not a certified or optimized schedule.