DOCA.5:5.1 - Two feasible support directions cannot share the same hours
Consider a constructed engineering-organization case. Two departments want better acceptance preparation during an eight-week period. The current arrangement is manual review. Candidate A supports one department with a qualified reviewer; candidate B supports the other with the same specialist. The following are stipulated case premises, not reported field evidence.
The relevant practice has qualified each direction separately for its own use. Each needs two specialist hours every week for all eight weeks. The organization has confirmed only two hours per week for this inquiry, after existing obligations. The protected condition is no overtime or loss of urgent operating cover. Setup and the remaining dependencies are covered in each separate qualification.
| Claim | Joint test and result |
|---|---|
| A alone | Its two weekly hours fit the qualified availability; retain its bounded individual reachability. |
| B alone | Its two weekly hours fit the same availability when A is absent; retain its bounded individual reachability. |
| A and B together | Four hours are required in each overlapping week, against two available; the combination is ruled out for this horizon and protection. |
| A followed by B | Both need eight weeks, so moving B after A does not fit the original eight-week horizon. A longer horizon would be a revised claim requiring its own availability and continuing-demand basis. |
| Shared support for A and B | “The specialist can cover both at once” is an unqualified new configuration, not a consequence of the individual results. |
The useful answer is not “development is impossible.” Both separate directions remain candidates. The organization can request the exact combined-work estimate for a genuinely shared-support configuration, examine another provider, or later consider a different horizon. Those possibilities require their own qualification. Choosing between A and B remains a separate decision.