MA-E1 — An order is priced below reported average cost

• Situation: A proposed order looks loss-making in the standard report, but its resource demands, capacity conditions and payments may tell a different story.
• Question: What does accepting the work change, and can its payments and operating demands be met when required?
• First useful result or blocker: A usable resource and monetary model, then an operating comparison and the remaining capacity or funding question.
• Start with: MA.1 - Build the Resource-Consumption and Cost Model when the dependencies are missing. Use an adequate model directly; enter MA.2 or MA.3 for a disputed capacity or assignment meaning.
• Stop or return: Supply the supported quantities and conditions to OPS.14 for the comparison. An unresolved schedule, financial term or funding question returns to the practice that can settle it.

1. Recover what the order consumes. In MA.1’s test-order case, an order for 100 accepted units would bring 1,200 of receipts while the report assigns 1,500 of cost. Under the supplied one-attempt premise, six to nine setup hours plus twenty processing hours require 26–29 rig-hours. The operating account establishes twenty uncommitted hours and one obtainable ten-hour block. The interval already settles the one-block question; a more precise setup measurement would not change it.
2. Attach payments through the actual supply arrangement. MA.2 - Explain the Cost and Use of Capacity keeps occupied hours, supplied blocks and payment changes distinct. The extra block costs 240; fourteen qualified staff-hours fit the supplied sixteen with unchanged pay. Materials cost 200 and the supplier 100, so the model returns 540 of additional payments. If the reported amount is instead disputed as a shared assignment, MA.3 - Assign Shared Costs for the Stated Use recovers its tracing or convention. Changing that assignment does not establish a changed payment.
3. Use the model for the receiving comparison and funding question. With no displaced contribution and all other flows unchanged, OPS.14 compares 1,200 with 540 and obtains 660. The whole cash position answers a different question. Without the order, 500 would remain available through day 28 after all other receipts and obligations. Paying the order’s 440 now leaves sixty, but the supplier’s 100 is due on day 7 and the customer pays on day 28. The funding gap of forty remains despite the favorable comparison. An additional receipt of fifty common to both options before day 7 would close that gap without changing the 660 difference.
4. Return a changed premise to the result it affects. An eleven-hour setup makes demand 31 hours, beyond the supplied thirty. Reopen the resource model and operating feasibility; the earlier one-block result no longer applies. A later change in payment terms instead reopens the timed account. Neither requires rebuilding an unchanged part of the model.