# Reserve capacity for a stated revision scenario

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic planning case: A proof-review plan has eight hours. Four initial reviews need one hour each; the declared contingency allows two revised proofs at 1.5 hours each.

## Decision

The named contingency totals seven review-hours: four initial plus three revision hours. One hour remains under that scenario, with additional revisions unresolved.

## Owned work

- State the revision scenario
  - Owner role: Review owner
  - Acceptance evidence: Two revised proofs at 1.5 hours each are the explicit contingency.
- Protect initial and revision time
  - Owner role: Scheduler
  - Acceptance evidence: Seven hours are charged against the eight-hour review pool.
- Name the excess trigger
  - Owner role: Delivery lead
  - Acceptance evidence: A third revision triggers replanning rather than an automatic commitment.

## Workflow

1. State the revision scenario. Check: Two revised proofs at 1.5 hours each are the explicit contingency.
2. Protect initial and revision time. Check: Seven hours are charged against the eight-hour review pool.
3. Name the excess trigger. Check: A third revision triggers replanning rather than an automatic commitment.

## Judgment

Observed revision frequency is unknown. Do not turn this stated contingency into a reliability or delivery guarantee.


## Filled manual planning note

The named contingency totals seven review-hours: four initial plus three revision hours. One hour remains under that scenario, with additional revisions unresolved. 4×1+2×1.5=7 review-hours; 8−7=1 remaining. This is a specified scenario, not an inferred probability or a universal reserve percentage. Observed revision frequency is unknown. Do not turn this stated contingency into a reliability or delivery guarantee.


## Workflow questions

### Does one spare hour cover a third full revision?

No. A further 1.5-hour revision would need more capacity or a changed window.

### Is this a recommended rework percentage?

No. The counts and durations are assumptions for this one planning exercise.

## 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

Review stage | Count | Hours each | Demand
--- | --- | --- | ---
Initial proofs | 4 | 1 | 4 hours
Allowed revision scenario | 2 | 1.5 | 3 hours
Available capacity | 1 pool | 8 | 8 hours

### Reasoning

4×1+2×1.5=7 review-hours; 8−7=1 remaining. This is a specified scenario, not an inferred probability or a universal reserve percentage.

### Bounded result

The named contingency totals seven review-hours: four initial plus three revision hours. One hour remains under that scenario, with additional revisions unresolved.

### Distinct decision

The decision budgets a declared revision workload and its specific capacity trigger.

### Limits

Observed revision frequency is unknown. Do not turn this stated contingency into a reliability or delivery guarantee.

### 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.