# Keep a mandatory review gate out of an average

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic planning case: A proof has readability score 9/10 and layout 9/10 but fails the required accurate-date gate. A draft averages only the two scores and calls the proof accepted.

## Decision

The required date gate holds acceptance regardless of the nine-point score average. Keep the veto condition outside a compensating preference average.

## Owned work

- Identify mandatory conditions
  - Owner role: Receiving owner
  - Acceptance evidence: Date accuracy is a noncompensating acceptance requirement.
- Separate gates from scores
  - Owner role: Reviewer
  - Acceptance evidence: The failed gate is visible beside, not averaged into, the preference summary.
- Request the bounded correction
  - Owner role: Delivery owner
  - Acceptance evidence: The date is corrected and rechecked before acceptance; unrelated approved layout need not be invented anew.

## Workflow

1. Identify mandatory conditions. Check: Date accuracy is a noncompensating acceptance requirement.
2. Separate gates from scores. Check: The failed gate is visible beside, not averaged into, the preference summary.
3. Request the bounded correction. Check: The date is corrected and rechecked before acceptance; unrelated approved layout need not be invented anew.

## Judgment

The example does not mandate a universal rubric. Its gate and preference roles are supplied local rules.


## Filled manual planning note

The required date gate holds acceptance regardless of the nine-point score average. Keep the veto condition outside a compensating preference average. (9+9)/2=9 is the average of the two scored preferences. It does not include or override the separate required true-date condition. The example does not mandate a universal rubric. Its gate and preference roles are supplied local rules.


## Working artifact

- Accurate date / Correct governing date in final proof / Hold if false or unverified
- Readability preference / Nine supplied points / Does not waive date gate
- Layout preference / Nine supplied points / Does not waive date gate


## Workflow questions

### Could a gate be changed?

Only through an explicit authorized requirement decision, not by a high average.

### Does a failed gate make all design work worthless?

No. Preserve accepted evidence while holding the unmet required boundary.

## 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 dimension | Toy result | Decision role
--- | --- | ---
Readability | 9/10 | Preference score
Layout | 9/10 | Preference score
Date accuracy | Fail | Required acceptance gate

### Reasoning

(9+9)/2=9 is the average of the two scored preferences. It does not include or override the separate required true-date condition.

### Bounded result

The required date gate holds acceptance regardless of the nine-point score average. Keep the veto condition outside a compensating preference average.

### Distinct decision

The artifact prevents a mandatory acceptance failure from disappearing inside an average.

### Limits

The example does not mandate a universal rubric. Its gate and preference roles are supplied local rules.

### 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.