A six-minute all-case MAE ranked against B two-minute observed-case MAE.
Forecast evaluation / Delivery leads, planning owners and acceptance reviewers
Before / afterCompare forecast methods on matched cases
Compare forecast methods on the same observed cases while retaining missing predictions.
The artifact exercises matched-case comparison after a misleading same-metric aggregate ranking, rather than converting hours to minutes.
Opens the current invite-request page. Access is subject to approval; this example is not imported automatically.
Original worked case · Manual planning resource
Inspect the decision, not just the summary.
Start with the invented evidence, follow the reasoning, and retain its limits when adapting the brief.
02 · Follow the reasoning
How the case leads to a decision
A all-case MAE=(2+4+8+10)/4=6. B observed-case MAE=(1+3)/2=2. Matched-case A MAE=(2+4)/2=3, versus B’s 2 on exactly those same cases. Missing predictions prevent a four-case B MAE; no zero error is imputed.
The bounded result
The six-versus-two comparison uses different case sets. On the two matched cases A’s MAE is three and B’s two; retain that narrower observed comparison while leaving the four-case B result unavailable.
01 · Inspect the inputs
Every record stays visible
| Case | A absolute error in minutes | B absolute error in minutes | Matched comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 1 | Eligible pair |
| 2 | 4 | 3 | Eligible pair |
| 3 | 8 | Missing prediction | No pair |
| 4 | 10 | Missing prediction | No pair |
Use horizontal scrolling for wide tables. These records are invented, not customer data.
Definitions and method context
Records, decisions and policies are original synthetic examples. External references supply context; they do not validate these cases or TeamBoostAI capabilities.
Forecasting: Principles and Practice — accuracy ↗
Genuine held-out forecast and point-error evaluation context. Binary scoring examples use their own explicit toy definitions; no real task model is validated.
External references checked 6 October 2026. Demand for these topics has not been measured.
Compare the decision quality
Illustrative before / afterSynthetic planning case: Two methods predict the same four case durations in minutes. A’s absolute errors are 2,4,8,10. B has errors 1,3 for the first two cases, but its last two predictions are missing. Their reported MAEs are six and two.
Matched-case MAEs three and two reported beside the missing two-case B coverage.
Freeze target, unit and case identities
Owner role · Evaluation owner
Evidence: Both methods target the same duration in minutes on cases 1–4.
Build the matched evidence set
Owner role · Reviewer
Evidence: Only cases 1 and 2 have errors for both methods; missing predictions remain visible.
Bound the comparative claim
Owner role · Planning lead
Evidence: B’s smaller observed MAE is stated for the two matched cases, not all four or future cases.
Decision to make: The six-versus-two comparison uses different case sets. On the two matched cases A’s MAE is three and B’s two; retain that narrower observed comparison while leaving the four-case B result unavailable.
Filled manual planning note
Invented planning text. Adapt it to your evidence and confirmed owners.
The six-versus-two comparison uses different case sets. On the two matched cases A’s MAE is three and B’s two; retain that narrower observed comparison while leaving the four-case B result unavailable. A all-case MAE=(2+4+8+10)/4=6. B observed-case MAE=(1+3)/2=2. Matched-case A MAE=(2+4)/2=3, versus B’s 2 on exactly those same cases. Missing predictions prevent a four-case B MAE; no zero error is imputed. All errors are invented and already use the same unit. The matched subset gives a descriptive comparison only, with no imputation or model validation.
Put the outline to work
- Freeze target, unit and case identities. Check: Both methods target the same duration in minutes on cases 1–4.
- Build the matched evidence set. Check: Only cases 1 and 2 have errors for both methods; missing predictions remain visible.
- Bound the comparative claim. Check: B’s smaller observed MAE is stated for the two matched cases, not all four or future cases.
From a useful outline to team work
Explore TeamBoostAI for your team
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 the workflows available in your account before adopting this outline.
Request TeamBoostAI access
Opens the current invite-request page. Access is subject to approval; this example is not imported automatically.
Questions about this workflow
Can I hide cases 3 and 4 after pairing?
No. Preserve the excluded identities and the missing-prediction reason alongside the narrower comparison.
Does matching two cases remove selection bias?
No. Missing predictions may be informative; the small paired subset cannot validate general superiority.
Does this create tasks in the product?
No. The brief is a manual planning resource. Use the product access link to check onboarding and the workflows available in your account.