# Apply hard eligibility before priority scores

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic planning case: Two proposed work routes receive local preference scores of ninety and seventy. Route A takes five model days; B takes two. The required receiving window is three days.

## Decision

Route A is ineligible under the declared three-day requirement despite its higher score. Compare preferences only among eligible routes; B fits this supplied timing rule.

## Owned work

- Confirm the hard requirement
  - Owner role: Receiving owner
  - Acceptance evidence: The three-day receiving window is explicit and still governs.
- Separate eligibility and preference
  - Owner role: Planner
  - Acceptance evidence: A is excluded by timing before comparing ninety with seventy.
- Review the eligible route
  - Owner role: Decision owner
  - Acceptance evidence: B’s other required inputs and acceptance evidence are checked separately.

## Workflow

1. Confirm the hard requirement. Check: The three-day receiving window is explicit and still governs.
2. Separate eligibility and preference. Check: A is excluded by timing before comparing ninety with seventy.
3. Review the eligible route. Check: B’s other required inputs and acceptance evidence are checked separately.

## Judgment

Scores and durations are invented inputs. The requirement may be reconsidered explicitly, but never silently waived by arithmetic.


## Filled manual planning note

Route A is ineligible under the declared three-day requirement despite its higher score. Compare preferences only among eligible routes; B fits this supplied timing rule. Eligibility is duration≤3 before score comparison. Five exceeds three; two does not. A preference score is not permission to relax the requirement. Scores and durations are invented inputs. The requirement may be reconsidered explicitly, but never silently waived by arithmetic.


## Workflow questions

### Can a high score override the deadline?

Only an authorized requirement change can do that; the score itself cannot.

### Does B’s timing fit prove overall readiness?

No. This exercise tests one declared constraint, not every delivery condition.

## 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

Route | Preference points | Model days | Three-day eligibility
--- | --- | --- | ---
A | 90 | 5 | Fails
B | 70 | 2 | Passes

### Reasoning

Eligibility is duration≤3 before score comparison. Five exceeds three; two does not. A preference score is not permission to relax the requirement.

### Bounded result

Route A is ineligible under the declared three-day requirement despite its higher score. Compare preferences only among eligible routes; B fits this supplied timing rule.

### Distinct decision

This separates a binary eligibility gate from preference ranking.

### Limits

Scores and durations are invented inputs. The requirement may be reconsidered explicitly, but never silently waived by arithmetic.

### 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.