# Record a process pilot's allocation context

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic planning case: A process pilot assigns the old review protocol to three experienced operators and a new protocol to three new operators. Mean completion times are eight and twelve invented minutes respectively.

## Decision

The four-minute sample difference cannot isolate the protocol effect from operator experience. Preserve assignment context before deciding what the pilot supports.

## Owned work

- Record actual assignment
  - Owner role: Pilot owner
  - Acceptance evidence: Old/new protocol exposure is tied to different experience groups.
- Separate observation from attribution
  - Owner role: Reviewer
  - Acceptance evidence: The four-minute difference is reported with its confounding context.
- Choose the next evidence design
  - Owner role: Process lead
  - Acceptance evidence: A new documented comparison addresses experience context before attributing results to protocol.

## Workflow

1. Record actual assignment. Check: Old/new protocol exposure is tied to different experience groups.
2. Separate observation from attribution. Check: The four-minute difference is reported with its confounding context.
3. Choose the next evidence design. Check: A new documented comparison addresses experience context before attributing results to protocol.

## Judgment

The six operators and times are synthetic. No significance, representative performance or causal effect is established.


## Filled manual planning note

The four-minute sample difference cannot isolate the protocol effect from operator experience. Preserve assignment context before deciding what the pilot supports. Twelve minus eight equals four minutes descriptively. Protocol and experience change together, so the recorded comparison cannot separate their contributions. The six operators and times are synthetic. No significance, representative performance or causal effect is established.


## Working artifact

- Assignment boundary / Three experienced old-protocol versus three new operators / Do not call allocation randomized
- Observed difference / Eight versus twelve toy minutes / Keep experience confounding visible
- Next comparison / Experience context must be addressed / Choose a documented design before causal claims


## Workflow questions

### Can I call this randomized?

No. The stated allocation follows experience group, not a documented randomized procedure.

### Is the pilot useless?

No. It may reveal concrete operating problems, but it does not establish a causal protocol effect.

## 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

Pilot group | Operators | Experience context | Mean toy minutes
--- | --- | --- | ---
Old protocol | 3 | Experienced | 8
New protocol | 3 | New to workflow | 12

### Reasoning

Twelve minus eight equals four minutes descriptively. Protocol and experience change together, so the recorded comparison cannot separate their contributions.

### Bounded result

The four-minute sample difference cannot isolate the protocol effect from operator experience. Preserve assignment context before deciding what the pilot supports.

### Distinct decision

The artifact audits process-pilot assignment before interpreting a group difference.

### Limits

The six operators and times are synthetic. No significance, representative performance or causal effect is established.

### Definitions and method context

- NIST combinatorial testing — https://www.nist.gov/publications/combinatorial-testing — Combination-coverage context. Invented review/state examples do not prove full fault coverage, certification or product behavior.