STR.10:5 - Archetypal Grounding
STR.10:5.1 - SensorCo’s small commitment and larger possible configuration
All conditions below are constructed teaching inputs. SensorCo can sustain current contracted service over twelve months. It has 80 relevant shared-team person-days for the illustrative first month: 52 for current service and 8 protected for incident recovery.
The team’s comparison distinguishes the immediate four-day service preparation from two possible larger configurations:
| Candidate commitment | Demand and displaced work | Consequence for the choice |
|---|---|---|
| Four internal days to complete costing and specify a possible trial | Already funded; no new purchase or customer-data use; postpones a four-day device-diagnostic improvement | Can be compared as a bounded information contribution while leaving the twelve-month service direction open |
| Original pilot, platform and learning/support proposal | 16 + 8 + 6 additional person-days; with service and reserve the total is 90 | Exceeds the 80-day capacity; separate budgets do not make the whole commitment available |
| Smaller proposed development configuration | 8 + 6 + 4 additional person-days; total 78 with service and reserve | Fits that time ceiling, but still needs the capability, permission, customer and financing conditions for dependent work |
The four preparation days are part of the smaller configuration’s eight-day preparation/use envelope, not an additional four to add to 78. The current Board decision authorizes only those four internal days. The eighteen-day development demand remains a possible later configuration, not a present service promise.
Within the six platform days, two retain device-compatible interfaces and maintenance instructions. This postpones a two-day service-diagnostic enhancement and preserves a device return through the first staged decision. The two days are included in 78; the two remaining unallocated days are not counted again as fallback or incident reserve.
The consequence comparison also asks who bears trial participation time, travel, incident coverage and any transition burden. Those costs are not settled by the team-day balance. A proposal to license customer data needs the separately established right; apparent low operating cost does not make the missing right available.
The supported immediate recommendation remains four-day preparation under the supplied criterion, with viable device-only continuation retained. If complete costing already excludes every relevant permitted service arrangement, continuing devices is the useful result without a trial. A larger commitment needs the comparison for that larger scope.
STR.10:5.2 - Reconsidering a reserve is not spending it first
Suppose someone proposes using SensorCo’s eight protected incident days to make the original 90-day programme look closer to feasible. Removing the reserve from the arithmetic leaves 82 days of demand, still above 80, and removes the protection the case requires.
A legitimate appraisal asks what incident exposure the reserve covers, what support and response evidence justify its size, what reducing it would displace and which alternative protects the contribution more efficiently. The competent owners supply that answer and any actual amendment authority. Until a revision applies, the comparison retains all eight protected days.
This is not an instruction to preserve every reserve forever. A supported change in workload or protection can justify revision. It is an instruction to compare protection and burden without silently treating a hoped-for revision as available capacity.
STR.10:5.3 - A public-service pilot can fail before benefit comparison
A municipal service proposes a temporary shift to one delivery channel. In this constructed case, a supplied protected-access obligation remains binding and the responsible body cannot suspend it. The proposal excludes the users who depend on the other channel.
A positive average waiting-time result does not cure that exclusion. The useful return is the unmet condition and a comparison of a configuration that preserves access, including its actual cost and feasibility. If no acceptable configuration is available, return the impasse. Calling the exclusion temporary does not make it admissible, and a larger survey does not determine the obligation’s force.