PSDA.6:5.6 - A failed affine form is not automatically contradictory judgement

Consider a different continuation from the original [10,20] family. The manager additionally says that (20,5) is no worse than (44,2). In the affine form this yields 20 + 5r <= 44 + 2r, or r <= 8. That row and the first original row r >= 10 cannot hold together. Return this specific conflict; the former comparison no longer has a compatible affine basis.

Ask whether the equal-increment assumption still expresses the manager’s values. They may care much more about reducing two hours to one than about reducing five hours to two. For example, a curved time-loss contribution taking values 0,20,28,36,44 at times 1,2,3,4,5, with loss c + h(t), satisfies all three profile comparisons: 60 <= 64, 56 <= 80 and 64 <= 64. This constructed witness proves only that those three judgements need not contradict one another. It is not an elicited curve and supplies no recommendation by itself.

If the manager withdraws constant time increments but retains addition, §4.5.3 constructs the whole compatible monotone family at the relevant levels. If the manager instead states the noncompensatory two-hour rule in §4.5.1, that different value account prefers A to B and C directly. Either change needs its stated basis; neither is a convenient parameter adjustment inside the old affine model. If no clarification is available, retain the attributed comparisons, D’s independently established exclusion and the exact failed form. Return the numerical ranking as unresolved.