# Check assumptions before using a flow ratio

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic planning case: A single checkpoint shows six started, unfinished items. A different lookback reports three finished items per day. A draft divides six by three and promises every current item will finish in two days.

## Decision

The quotient has a two-day unit under the supplied numbers, but it does not establish an individual completion time. Review scope, comparable averaging windows and flow conditions before any stronger interpretation.

## Owned work

- Identify each observation window
  - Owner role: Flow reviewer
  - Acceptance evidence: Snapshot and throughput lookback are explicitly different evidence.
- Separate arithmetic from inference
  - Owner role: Planner
  - Acceptance evidence: The quotient is labelled an illustrative ratio, not a measured wait or promise.
- Collect the missing context
  - Owner role: Queue owner
  - Acceptance evidence: Comparable scope, period averages and actual item histories are reviewed before adopting a model.

## Workflow

1. Identify each observation window. Check: Snapshot and throughput lookback are explicitly different evidence.
2. Separate arithmetic from inference. Check: The quotient is labelled an illustrative ratio, not a measured wait or promise.
3. Collect the missing context. Check: Comparable scope, period averages and actual item histories are reviewed before adopting a model.

## Judgment

This example does not implement or validate a queueing theorem. Its mismatched observations are deliberately insufficient for a waiting-time claim.


## Filled manual planning note

The quotient has a two-day unit under the supplied numbers, but it does not establish an individual completion time. Review scope, comparable averaging windows and flow conditions before any stronger interpretation. 6 items÷3 items/day=2 days dimensionally. Matching units alone cannot turn a single stock snapshot and another-period rate into a per-item deadline. This example does not implement or validate a queueing theorem. Its mismatched observations are deliberately insufficient for a waiting-time claim.


## Workflow questions

### Does a day unit mean the quotient is a real duration?

No. Dimensional consistency is necessary for arithmetic but does not establish the intended inference.

### Can current items have different remaining times?

Yes. Their states, required work and receiving conditions may differ substantially.

## 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

Input | Supplied value | Evidence limitation
--- | --- | ---
Checkpoint stock | 6 items | One snapshot, not a period average
Lookback throughput | 3 items/day | Different observation window
Arithmetic quotient | 2 days | Not observed individual duration

### Reasoning

6 items÷3 items/day=2 days dimensionally. Matching units alone cannot turn a single stock snapshot and another-period rate into a per-item deadline.

### Bounded result

The quotient has a two-day unit under the supplied numbers, but it does not establish an individual completion time. Review scope, comparable averaging windows and flow conditions before any stronger interpretation.

### Distinct decision

The artifact audits the inference behind a stock/rate quotient, distinct from directly measuring item age or cycle time.

### Limits

This example does not implement or validate a queueing theorem. Its mismatched observations are deliberately insufficient for a waiting-time claim.

### Definitions and method context

- The Kanban Guide — https://kanbanguides.org/the-kanban-guide/ — Workflow and flow-measure context. Queue policies and staffing scenarios are explicitly local examples, not delivery guarantees.