STR.9:4.3 - Compare the whole finite change with the current configuration

Ask what would actually be added, removed or substituted. Include transition, support, recovery, common bottlenecks and displaced work. An indivisible training package or service commitment cannot be valued by multiplying an isolated local gain without checking its joint effect.

Use FPF C.11.CRC, Configuration-Relative Contribution Comparison, when this finite comparison is missing. It makes the current configuration, changed configuration, result and resource coordinates, interactions and option effects explicit. Reuse a sufficient existing account instead of making a second one.

When money is material, identify the offer or obligation behind each claimed change: who would pay or receive what, when, and under which demand and acceptance conditions over the chosen horizon. Use an adequate OPS.14 operating account for a bounded operating choice, or the qualified financial result needed for another use. Reconcile shared receipts, avoidable payments and displaced contributions once for each whole configuration. Disjoint feature lists or unchanged salaries do not establish those differences. Keep a missing estimate unresolved and reuse a sufficient account instead of commissioning another.

Before using a rate or priority score to compare whole financial results, recover its underlying quantity, denominator, interval and completion conditions through OPS.15. Determine any material delay loss from the actual changed receipts, payments or foregone contribution under the compared timing; postponing one receipt does not charge its entire value anew for every delayed period.

Compare an attainable addition with what is already there, not with an empty or ideal organization. Include the cost of obtaining the comparison separately from the cost of realizing its preferred option. Information that opens a later choice is not yet operating revenue or delivered benefit.