# Evaluate a task together with its prerequisite

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic planning case: Task A claims nine declared points for three implementation-hours but requires five prerequisite-hours. B offers eight points for six hours with no additional prerequisite in the model.

## Decision

Compare A’s eight-hour bundle with B’s six hours. Under the stated points-per-hour policy, B has the larger ratio; A’s isolated implementation ratio is misleading.

## Owned work

- Identify enabling obligations
  - Owner role: Task owner
  - Acceptance evidence: A’s five-hour prerequisite is necessary and not already supplied.
- Compare the actual bundles
  - Owner role: Planner
  - Acceptance evidence: A uses eight hours and B six under this model.
- Check prerequisite reuse separately
  - Owner role: Decision owner
  - Acceptance evidence: Any claim that A’s enabler benefits other work is evaluated explicitly before changing the comparison.

## Workflow

1. Identify enabling obligations. Check: A’s five-hour prerequisite is necessary and not already supplied.
2. Compare the actual bundles. Check: A uses eight hours and B six under this model.
3. Check prerequisite reuse separately. Check: Any claim that A’s enabler benefits other work is evaluated explicitly before changing the comparison.

## Judgment

Prerequisite effort and preference points are invented. Dependencies, reused inputs and hard constraints must be verified in real work.


## Filled manual planning note

Compare A’s eight-hour bundle with B’s six hours. Under the stated points-per-hour policy, B has the larger ratio; A’s isolated implementation ratio is misleading. A isolated=9/3=3, but bundle=9/8=1.125. B=8/6≈1.333. The declared ratio rule selects B only after the full enabling demand is included. Prerequisite effort and preference points are invented. Dependencies, reused inputs and hard constraints must be verified in real work.


## Workflow questions

### Can a shared enabler be charged differently?

Possibly, but its allocation and benefits need a stated portfolio rule; this case charges it entirely to A.

### Does the ratio dictate every priority decision?

No. It is one declared local preference rule, not a universal value or deadline policy.

## 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

Option | Implementation | Prerequisite | Total | Points
--- | --- | --- | --- | ---
A | 3 hours | 5 hours | 8 hours | 9
B | 6 hours | 0 additional | 6 hours | 8

### Reasoning

A isolated=9/3=3, but bundle=9/8=1.125. B=8/6≈1.333. The declared ratio rule selects B only after the full enabling demand is included.

### Bounded result

Compare A’s eight-hour bundle with B’s six hours. Under the stated points-per-hour policy, B has the larger ratio; A’s isolated implementation ratio is misleading.

### Distinct decision

The decision evaluates enabling work together with the proposed outcome, instead of comparing incomplete task costs.

### Limits

Prerequisite effort and preference points are invented. Dependencies, reused inputs and hard constraints must be verified in real work.

### Definitions and method context

- 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.