# Compare waiting under two review cadences

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic planning case: Three ready proofs arrive at 09:10,10:10 and 11:10. One policy reviews at 12:00; another has available capacity to review each at the next whole hour. Review duration is excluded from this waiting example.

## Decision

Waiting to the scheduled start is 170,110 and 50 minutes under the noon batch, versus 50 each under the hourly-start policy. Compare the stated windows and setup cost before choosing a cadence.

## Owned work

- Define the waiting boundary
  - Owner role: Flow owner
  - Acceptance evidence: Timing ends at scheduled review start, not acceptance.
- Verify actual available slots
  - Owner role: Reviewer
  - Acceptance evidence: The hourly policy has separate adequate capacity for each proof.
- Compare cadence tradeoffs
  - Owner role: Planning lead
  - Acceptance evidence: Setup demand, receiving deadlines and the example start waits are reviewed together.

## Workflow

1. Define the waiting boundary. Check: Timing ends at scheduled review start, not acceptance.
2. Verify actual available slots. Check: The hourly policy has separate adequate capacity for each proof.
3. Compare cadence tradeoffs. Check: Setup demand, receiving deadlines and the example start waits are reviewed together.

## Judgment

The hourly policy assumes all three slots are feasible. Queueing during review and variable processing time are not modelled.


## Filled manual planning note

Waiting to the scheduled start is 170,110 and 50 minutes under the noon batch, versus 50 each under the hourly-start policy. Compare the stated windows and setup cost before choosing a cadence. Mean start wait in this invented cohort is(170+110+50)/3=110 minutes versus(50+50+50)/3=50. These exclude review duration and are not population latency estimates. The hourly policy assumes all three slots are feasible. Queueing during review and variable processing time are not modelled.


## Before / after

Before: Noon policy waits 170,110 and 50 minutes before review starts.

After: Available hourly slots wait 50 minutes for each case, with setup and processing costs still to review.


## Workflow questions

### Is the hourly policy necessarily better?

No. It may require more setup or unavailable capacity; the example isolates scheduled start wait.

### Can these three records establish an average for all proofs?

No. They are invented cases under fixed arrival and slot assumptions.

## 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

Ready time | Wait to 12:00 batch | Wait to next whole hour
--- | --- | ---
09:10 | 170 min | 50 min
10:10 | 110 min | 50 min
11:10 | 50 min | 50 min

### Reasoning

Mean start wait in this invented cohort is(170+110+50)/3=110 minutes versus(50+50+50)/3=50. These exclude review duration and are not population latency estimates.

### Bounded result

Waiting to the scheduled start is 170,110 and 50 minutes under the noon batch, versus 50 each under the hourly-start policy. Compare the stated windows and setup cost before choosing a cadence.

### Distinct decision

This compares explicit review-start cadences rather than retrospective request-to-response clock reconstruction.

### Limits

The hourly policy assumes all three slots are feasible. Queueing during review and variable processing time are not modelled.

### 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.