# Inspect forecast probabilities by relevant work group

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic planning case: Twelve binary forecasts each assign 0.8 to success. Group A has ten cases and eight successes; group B has two cases and zero successes. A report hides groups inside a single result.

## Decision

Show group A at 8/10 and group B at 0/2 beside the aggregate 8/12. Neither the small group results nor the aggregate establish calibrated future forecasts.

## Owned work

- Retain the declared grouping
  - Owner role: Evaluation owner
  - Acceptance evidence: A and B membership is recorded independently of outcomes.
- Compute denominators visibly
  - Owner role: Reviewer
  - Acceptance evidence: Group results use ten and two; aggregate uses twelve without averaging group percentages equally.
- Bound the calibration interpretation
  - Owner role: Planning lead
  - Acceptance evidence: Mismatch is a descriptive finding needing more justified evaluation, not proof about people or future tasks.

## Workflow

1. Retain the declared grouping. Check: A and B membership is recorded independently of outcomes.
2. Compute denominators visibly. Check: Group results use ten and two; aggregate uses twelve without averaging group percentages equally.
3. Bound the calibration interpretation. Check: Mismatch is a descriptive finding needing more justified evaluation, not proof about people or future tasks.

## Judgment

All cases and probabilities are invented; no subgroup competence or product model claim is supported.


## Filled manual planning note

Show group A at 8/10 and group B at 0/2 beside the aggregate 8/12. Neither the small group results nor the aggregate establish calibrated future forecasts. Aggregate observed fraction is 8/12≈66.7%, versus a mean supplied prediction of 80%. Group A’s observed fraction happens to match 0.8; group B’s does not. Twelve outcomes, especially a two-case subgroup, cannot establish stable calibration. All cases and probabilities are invented; no subgroup competence or product model claim is supported.


## Workflow questions

### May I average 80% and 0% into 40%?

Not as the case-weighted overall fraction: the groups have different sizes.

### Is A proven calibrated?

No. A single small observed match at one supplied probability is insufficient.

## 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

Group | Cases | Predicted success probability per case | Observed successes | Observed fraction
--- | --- | --- | --- | ---
A | 10 | 0.8 | 8 | 80%
B | 2 | 0.8 | 0 | 0%
Combined | 12 | 0.8 | 8 | 66.7% rounded

### Reasoning

Aggregate observed fraction is 8/12≈66.7%, versus a mean supplied prediction of 80%. Group A’s observed fraction happens to match 0.8; group B’s does not. Twelve outcomes, especially a two-case subgroup, cannot establish stable calibration.

### Bounded result

Show group A at 8/10 and group B at 0/2 beside the aggregate 8/12. Neither the small group results nor the aggregate establish calibrated future forecasts.

### Distinct decision

The artifact exposes unequal-size group behavior concealed by an aggregate probability comparison.

### Limits

All cases and probabilities are invented; no subgroup competence or product model claim is supported.

### 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.