# Include the learning cost of a new workflow

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic planning case: A new manual review protocol needs four hours of practice once, then twenty supplied minutes per proof instead of thirty. Six proofs are planned for the first period.

## Decision

The first-period new-protocol demand is six hours versus three for the old route. Under unchanged assumptions, twenty-four proofs merely break even on total time; learning cost must stay visible.

## Owned work

- Separate practice from operating time
  - Owner role: Training owner
  - Acceptance evidence: The four-hour one-time obligation has a named receiving check.
- Calculate the relevant workload horizon
  - Owner role: Planner
  - Acceptance evidence: Six proofs do not reach the 24-proof toy break-even count.
- Review non-time outcomes
  - Owner role: Decision owner
  - Acceptance evidence: Quality, fit and actual learning evidence are considered before selecting the route.

## Workflow

1. Separate practice from operating time. Check: The four-hour one-time obligation has a named receiving check.
2. Calculate the relevant workload horizon. Check: Six proofs do not reach the 24-proof toy break-even count.
3. Review non-time outcomes. Check: Quality, fit and actual learning evidence are considered before selecting the route.

## Judgment

The supplied durations are not observed savings or ROI. Stable per-proof demand and no extra refresh training are explicit assumptions.


## Filled manual planning note

The first-period new-protocol demand is six hours versus three for the old route. Under unchanged assumptions, twenty-four proofs merely break even on total time; learning cost must stay visible. Per-proof difference is ten minutes. Recovering 240 practice minutes would require 24 proofs under the supplied unchanged durations; six proofs recover only 60 minutes. The supplied durations are not observed savings or ROI. Stable per-proof demand and no extra refresh training are explicit assumptions.


## Before / after

Before: Old route for six proofs needs 180 supplied minutes.

After: New route needs 360 first-period minutes including practice; later periods require their own scoped comparison.


## Workflow questions

### Does break-even prove the new protocol should be adopted?

No. The durations are assumptions and quality or operating fit may matter more.

### Can practice cost be erased after adoption?

Keep its historical demand distinct; later steady-state periods may use a different scoped comparison.

## 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

Demand line | Old route | New route
--- | --- | ---
One-time practice | 0 additional | 240 min
Per proof | 30 min | 20 min
Six-proof period | 180 min | 240+120=360 min

### Reasoning

Per-proof difference is ten minutes. Recovering 240 practice minutes would require 24 proofs under the supplied unchanged durations; six proofs recover only 60 minutes.

### Bounded result

The first-period new-protocol demand is six hours versus three for the old route. Under unchanged assumptions, twenty-four proofs merely break even on total time; learning cost must stay visible.

### Distinct decision

The artifact distinguishes one-time learning demand from repeated processing in a selected planning horizon.

### Limits

The supplied durations are not observed savings or ROI. Stable per-proof demand and no extra refresh training are explicit assumptions.

### Definitions and method context

- GAO Schedule Assessment Guide — https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-16-89g — General schedule-model context. All records, local policies and arithmetic are original toy examples, not a certified or optimized schedule.