PSD.9:5.1 - Two meanings of flood service

In the illustrative flood-pump engagement, a residents’ association emphasizes property protection, while a separately heard group of mobility-constrained residents emphasizes reachable assistance. The board is the later choice owner, not an assumed representative of every value judgement.

The analyst replaces a generic “service quality” score with this account:

Concern	Consequence representation	Trade-off or qualification boundary
Reduce property loss.	A qualified loss estimate for the affected properties and flood conditions.	The estimate is not evidence of reachable assistance; its valuation and uncertainty remain explicit.
Keep assistance reachable.	Whether the defined assistance service can reach the named population under the relevant access conditions.	The expressed concern is retained. Any binding access or safety condition needs its direct competent basis; it is not inferred from participation.
Maintain pumping service.	Hours of unavailability for the specified pumping service over the season.	This operational measure does not cover all property or human consequences.
Limit resource use.	Resources required by each whole arrangement, including continuing obligations and transition.	A cost preference does not permit violation of a separately established protected condition.

The analyst removes a second “reliability benefit” entry that merely repeats the same pumping-service hours. Reachable assistance stays separate even if failures often occur in the same storms. That is not duplicate value.

If the board adopts a trade-off between operating-service hours and budget units for a narrow analytical slice, the account names that value judgement, range, and limit. It does not present the slice as the residents’ common value function. If the association and the other group reject a common trade-off, the return carries separate accounts and a stated disagreement; another hydraulic simulation cannot resolve that disagreement.