CUST.7:5 - Archetypal Grounding

Six comparable deployments each require six hours of one named qualified resource, for 36 hours. A proposed shared method requires twelve hours of preparation and three hours per deployment, for 30 hours at six cases. At two cases, the comparison is twelve hours versus eighteen: the common preparation has not yet reduced the total.

Now include ten hours of transition work for existing customers in the same period. The proposed arrangement requires forty hours, not thirty. It may still be worthwhile over a different supported horizon, but the original six-case claim no longer justifies this release. These are supplied scenario values, not empirical estimates.

The provider then proposes partner delivery. Ordinary work moves to the partner, but every exception still needs the same central specialist. CUST.7 separates the useful increase in ordinary delivery capacity from the unresolved specialist constraint and includes coordination. A partner invoice does not show that total work fell.

For a publicly funded literacy programme, compare preparation, facilitator work, translation, devices, ongoing help and participant burden. A shared lesson plan may save preparation while local facilitation remains proportional to attendance. That is a supported finding, not failed productization. The decision concerns attainable public value within funding and capacity, not a fictional price for each participant.