LDR.2:4.5 - Test joint performance, not just individual promises

Before seeking acceptance, place the relied-on contributions in their relevant time windows. Check the quantities and conditions that limit performance: qualified specialist hours, a laboratory window, a delegated spending limit, particular access, a service reserve or a participant’s actual availability.

Sum demands that compete for the same resource. Do not add unlike capacities as if a spare administrator hour supplied a missing engineering hour. Retain timing: a sufficient monthly total cannot supply a specialist who is unavailable before the decision. Include support and supervision retained by the arrangement; they are often the hidden constraint.

When the proposed whole does not fit, construct actual alternatives. Move a contribution only with its receiver’s accepted change; narrow scope without losing the required result; share preparation where it really serves several contributions; obtain a qualified substitute or provider; change the method or sequencing; or defer the unsupported work. Compare the consequences at the level where they matter. A local saving can create a larger downstream burden.

Authority has its own compatibility test. A manager may allocate one team’s time while another unit controls the required specialist. A provider may promise support only after a contract becomes effective. Obtain those contributions or keep the proposal conditional. Do not infer corporate, employment or contractual powers from the fact that participants reached an informal consensus.