# Check a shared WIP limit alongside lane limits

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic planning case: Two work lanes each allow four started items. Lane A has three and B three; both use a common resource pool whose shared limit is five.

## Decision

Each lane is within four, but the combined six exceeds the shared limit by one. Resolve the shared-pool condition before admitting another item.

## Owned work

- Define all governing limits
  - Owner role: Workflow owner
  - Acceptance evidence: The five-item shared boundary applies to both lanes together.
- Check combined started work
  - Owner role: Coordinator
  - Acceptance evidence: Six distinct items use the shared pool without duplicate membership.
- Choose an explicit admission action
  - Owner role: Delivery lead
  - Acceptance evidence: No new item is admitted until a permitted limit or work-state decision resolves the shared excess.

## Workflow

1. Define all governing limits. Check: The five-item shared boundary applies to both lanes together.
2. Check combined started work. Check: Six distinct items use the shared pool without duplicate membership.
3. Choose an explicit admission action. Check: No new item is admitted until a permitted limit or work-state decision resolves the shared excess.

## Judgment

Limits are supplied policies, not evidence of native WIP configuration or a validated optimum. Verify membership and the actual workflow boundary.


## Filled manual planning note

Each lane is within four, but the combined six exceeds the shared limit by one. Resolve the shared-pool condition before admitting another item. Three plus three is six. Passing both lane inequalities does not imply passing the additional shared inequality 6≤5. Limits are supplied policies, not evidence of native WIP configuration or a validated optimum. Verify membership and the actual workflow boundary.


## Workflow questions

### Can spare room in one lane waive the shared limit?

No. They are separate declared constraints.

### Does a limit of five guarantee better delivery?

No. It is a local policy to inspect and review, not a universal optimal number.

## 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

Boundary | Current started items | Declared limit | Treatment
--- | --- | --- | ---
Lane A | 3 | 4 | Within lane
Lane B | 3 | 4 | Within lane
Shared pool | 6 | 5 | One above shared limit

### Reasoning

Three plus three is six. Passing both lane inequalities does not imply passing the additional shared inequality 6≤5.

### Bounded result

Each lane is within four, but the combined six exceeds the shared limit by one. Resolve the shared-pool condition before admitting another item.

### Distinct decision

The decision checks simultaneous lane and shared-resource admission constraints.

### Limits

Limits are supplied policies, not evidence of native WIP configuration or a validated optimum. Verify membership and the actual workflow boundary.

### 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.