# Combine estimates with shared scenario assumptions

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic planning case: Tasks A and B share an external readiness condition. Under the normal scenario their durations are three and four days; under the delayed scenario five and seven. They execute sequentially.

## Decision

The supplied joint scenarios produce seven or twelve model days. Keep their shared condition visible; mixing normal A with delayed B is not one of the two declared joint scenarios.

## Owned work

- Identify the shared premise
  - Owner role: Planning owner
  - Acceptance evidence: Both task durations depend on the same named readiness condition.
- Combine compatible cases
  - Owner role: Estimator
  - Acceptance evidence: Seven and twelve retain complete joint scenarios rather than independently selected endpoints.
- Check missing scenarios
  - Owner role: Receiving lead
  - Acceptance evidence: Any mixed or other case requires its own input evidence before expanding the model.

## Workflow

1. Identify the shared premise. Check: Both task durations depend on the same named readiness condition.
2. Combine compatible cases. Check: Seven and twelve retain complete joint scenarios rather than independently selected endpoints.
3. Check missing scenarios. Check: Any mixed or other case requires its own input evidence before expanding the model.

## Judgment

Scenario dependence is a stated assumption. Actual distributions, resource constraints and other cases are unverified.


## Filled manual planning note

The supplied joint scenarios produce seven or twelve model days. Keep their shared condition visible; mixing normal A with delayed B is not one of the two declared joint scenarios. Normal total=3+4=7; delayed total=5+7=12. Ten is arithmetically possible from the mixed numbers but has no declared scenario meaning in this supplied model. Scenario dependence is a stated assumption. Actual distributions, resource constraints and other cases are unverified.


## Before / after

Before: A draft adds normal A three to delayed B seven without naming a compatible scenario.

After: The planning note keeps normal seven and delayed twelve as two coherent supplied cases.


## Workflow questions

### Does this estimate a statistical correlation coefficient?

No. It declares shared scenario dependence; no population correlation is measured.

### Are seven and twelve the complete real-world bounds?

No. They are the two supplied model cases, not proof that other outcomes cannot occur.

## 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

Joint scenario | A days | B days | Sequential total
--- | --- | --- | ---
Normal shared condition | 3 | 4 | 7
Delayed shared condition | 5 | 7 | 12
Mixed input draft | 3 | 7 | 10: not a declared joint scenario

### Reasoning

Normal total=3+4=7; delayed total=5+7=12. Ten is arithmetically possible from the mixed numbers but has no declared scenario meaning in this supplied model.

### Bounded result

The supplied joint scenarios produce seven or twelve model days. Keep their shared condition visible; mixing normal A with delayed B is not one of the two declared joint scenarios.

### Distinct decision

The decision preserves joint scenario consistency when combining task estimates.

### Limits

Scenario dependence is a stated assumption. Actual distributions, resource constraints and other cases are unverified.

### Definitions and method context

- Forecasting: Principles and Practice — accuracy — https://otexts.com/fpp3/accuracy.html — Genuine held-out forecast and point-error evaluation context. Binary scoring examples use their own explicit toy definitions; no real task model is validated.