STR.9:5.4 - SensorCo: a central workload can hide the service exposure

This constructed extension examines the proposed 78-engineer-day first-month configuration, not the earlier four-day preparation decision. Fix its service scope, team and thirty-day window. A stipulated operating model gives total engineer-day demand, including the protected eight-engineer-day incident reserve, when zero, one or two additional trial requests arrive. These three request conditions are the model’s stated test domain; none has an assigned probability.

The PSD.12 paired comparison gives a central response of 79 engineer-days and an endpoint mean of 81 engineer-days, a two-engineer-day gap. This is not an expected workload. More importantly, the two-request response exceeds the actual 80-engineer-day capacity by four engineer-days. The central case’s apparent fit therefore does not establish that the service scope can be supported under all three conditions. Removing the protected reserve is not an admissible repair.

One proposed response is to limit trial admissions to one and defer additional requests. That only narrows exposure if the actual customer terms permit deferral, the remaining service is a useful complete contribution, and the required admission and support arrangement is feasible. Those premises are not supplied here. The return is these three unanswered questions, alongside the failed two-request condition, not an asserted workload cap or a selected service commitment.

The Board can use permitted preparation to clarify that narrower arrangement and its full cost if this can change the choice. Existing device continuation remains a serious alternative. The earlier preparation authorization neither establishes the response model nor funds or limits a future service promise. A sufficient current capacity and terms account would be reused without another test.