Define the joint requirement
Owner role · Planning owner
Evidence: Both gates, rather than either gate, are required in this model.
Risk and options / Delivery leads, planning owners and acceptance reviewers
Decision deskInspect a toy probability across serial gates
State independence and outcome definitions before multiplying supplied gate probabilities.
This distinguishes a joint requirement from marginal probability inputs and makes independence inspectable.
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
Under independence, P(A and B)=0.9×0.8=0.72. With these marginals, joint probability could instead lie between max(0,0.9+0.8−1)=0.7 and min(0.9,0.8)=0.8. The multiplication chooses one dependence model.
The bounded result
The joint pass probability is 0.72 only under the supplied independence assumption. Without a joint model, the two marginal probabilities alone do not identify that result.
01 · Inspect the inputs
Every record stays visible
| Event | Supplied probability | Condition |
|---|---|---|
| A passes | 0.9 | Marginal only |
| B passes | 0.8 | Marginal only |
| Both pass | 0.72 | If independent |
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.
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.
External references checked 6 October 2026. Demand for these topics has not been measured.
Decision desk
Decide before adding more work
Decision to make: The joint pass probability is 0.72 only under the supplied independence assumption. Without a joint model, the two marginal probabilities alone do not identify that result.
Synthetic planning case: A toy model requires two gates to pass. Supplied probabilities are 0.9 for A and 0.8 for B. One proposal multiplies them without stating whether the events are independent.
Expose dependence assumptions
Owner role · Method reviewer
Evidence: Shared inputs or reviewers are considered before assuming independent events.
Bound the probability claim
Owner role · Decision owner
Evidence: The note names the conditional model and does not call 72% a validated deadline forecast.
Filled manual planning note
Invented planning text. Adapt it to your evidence and confirmed owners.
The joint pass probability is 0.72 only under the supplied independence assumption. Without a joint model, the two marginal probabilities alone do not identify that result. Under independence, P(A and B)=0.9×0.8=0.72. With these marginals, joint probability could instead lie between max(0,0.9+0.8−1)=0.7 and min(0.9,0.8)=0.8. The multiplication chooses one dependence model. No real gate probabilities or deadline confidence have been validated. The bounds describe this two-event mathematical model only.
Questions about this workflow
Can two different owners make events independent?
No. Shared work, inputs and circumstances can still connect their outcomes.
Are the supplied probabilities measured?
No. They are invented model inputs; the example demonstrates conditional arithmetic.
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.
Put the outline to work
- Define the joint requirement. Check: Both gates, rather than either gate, are required in this model.
- Expose dependence assumptions. Check: Shared inputs or reviewers are considered before assuming independent events.
- Bound the probability claim. Check: The note names the conditional model and does not call 72% a validated deadline forecast.
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.