Question 16 · Repair & Reuse · fictional case

Stakeholder story

How do we explain the current position and next three decisions clearly to stakeholders?

Lead with a controlled replan: the lease decision is closed, but equipment delay puts the 12-week launch at risk, electrical-pilot assurance is outstanding, and the £8,000 option has no approval. Ask for three specific decisions, each tied to evidence and a consequence.

Fictional what-if workspace. Changes stay in this tab and reset on reload; no record is saved and no external system is changed.

Next three decisions and evidenceRehearse a stakeholder briefingInspect all source records

The story so far · latest supplied observation: day 12

One past decision. Three unresolved consequences.

Then — day 6: the lease decision was approved with no scope change (LE-02, closed). That is the only explicit past approval in these records. It does not establish that North’s landlord handover is recorded (E01).

Now — days 10–12: equipment reports a two-week delay (EQ-12); safety sign-off is outstanding (SA-04); an £8,000 option remains unapproved (BU-07). Lower-signal observations stay on the watchlist below.

Next — conditional forecast: on the stated sequencing assumptions, equipment moves integration from week 6 to week 8 and completion from week 12 to week 14. At six paid staff throughout, the resulting envelope is £232,800 excluding the option; adding it reaches £240,800, £800 over the £240,000 limit. Safety or other unresolved gates can still push completion later.

“Day” is the supplied observation index, not a verified calendar date. The case baseline is 5 January 2026; the page’s authoring date is not the operational reporting date. No progress percentage, spend-to-date, recovery promise or current approval is supplied.

Direct decision brief

The next three decisions

The order below is a proposed briefing sequence, not a claim about delegated authority. All three are open in the supplied snapshot; owners are evidence coordinators unless the record says otherwise.

Choose an evidenced delivery plan

Ask: confirm the revised equipment date and compare a verified recovery offer with a week-14 replan. Do not promise week 12 from an unconfirmed backup.

Evidence owner: Supply lead.
Decision authority: not supplied; identify the authorised schedule and purchasing decision-maker.

Decision point: before committing integration dates or any recovery purchase.

Consequence: with no further hold, removing two weeks of delay restores the model’s week-12 finish; accepting the reported delay gives week 14. Recovery feasibility and premium are unknown.

Evidence and decision conditions

EQ-12 · day 10: “Two-week delay”; action: “Confirm backup and delivery date”. Anomaly flagged; score 5.

E04: “IF integration is scheduled THEN verify equipment delivery date”. Obtain a dated delivery confirmation, backup availability, compatibility and full cost before choosing.

The £8,000 option has no supplied scope; it is not assumed to buy equipment recovery. Record the chosen basis, accountable approver and revisit trigger outside this simulator.

Hold or release the electrical pilot gate

Ask: retain the electrical-pilot hold until named qualified sign-off is evidenced. Agree the evidence required and a realistic review point.

Evidence owner: Assurance lead.
Required authority: named qualified sign-off; no named signatory is supplied.

Decision point: before electrical repair enters pilot; in the delay scenario pilot would otherwise start at week 10.

Consequence: a schedule calculation cannot clear this gate. Any later sign-off adds waiting time; no completion date is yet assured.

Evidence and decision conditions

SA-04 · day 11: “Sign-off outstanding”; action: “Resolve before pilot gate”. Anomaly flagged; score 6.

E03: “IF electrical repair enters pilot THEN named qualified sign-off is required”. Seek the signed assurance evidence and confirmation of its applicable scope.

E03 blocks electrical pilot specifically. The model conservatively holds the combined pilot; it does not infer that non-electrical work can start or that the whole service is unsafe. Any alternative scope needs its own evidenced decision.

Remove or authorise the £8,000 option

Ask: keep the option excluded from the authorised baseline until its scope, value, funding and approval are established. Either remove it or seek an explicit decision on a fully costed envelope.

Evidence owner: Finance lead.
Decision authority: authorised budget-holder not identified in the fixtures.

Decision point: before commitment, payment or any eligible-spend claim.

Consequence: at week 14, £232,800 excludes the option; £240,800 includes it. The £12,000 contingency is already inside both envelopes.

Evidence and decision conditions

BU-07 · day 12: “£8,000 unapproved option”; action: “Approve or remove option”. Anomaly flagged; score 4.

E02: “IF eligible spend is claimed THEN retain approval and invoice evidence”. Unsupported spend is excluded from the claim; this does not make that spend free.

The option’s purpose, benefit, commitment status and grant eligibility are not supplied. Budget headroom does not confer approval; a decision to use contingency also needs the relevant authority.

Prepare the conversation

Simulate the briefing and its consequences

Choose an audience and explicit assumptions. The result changes the proposed wording and forecast; the source evidence and unresolved approvals stay fixed.

Proposed stakeholder briefing

Conditional completion
Modelled total envelope
Source assurance stateElectrical pilot heldSA-04 unresolved; E03 applies

How the finish moves

Week labels are elapsed boundaries from the case baseline, not observed completions. Fit-out and equipment run in parallel after design. The combined pilot is held for the entered extra wait; no partial opening is inferred. Other gates below remain unresolved evidence requirements.

Inspect calculations and scenario evidence trail 

        
    
        
    Correction route: change the fields and simulate again, or Reset. This in-page result is deliberately ephemeral; it is not a decision record, approval, file, dispatch or connection. Reload restores the supplied position.
    
      
    
    
    
  
    

  
    
    
    What this story can and cannot establish
    
    
    
      
    
        
    Calculations use explicit planning assumptions
    
        
      
          
    • All six staff work on fit-out for 24 ÷ 6 = 4 weeks after the two-week design. Equipment also starts its four-week lead time after design.
      • 
          
    • Integration, then pilot, then readiness each take two weeks. This interprets the named stages sequentially; if they can overlap, the plan must be revised with evidence.
      • 
          
    • All six staff are paid £1,200 each for every modelled launch week, including waits. Fixed cost stays £120,000; contingency stays £12,000. No actual spend ledger is supplied.
      • 
          
    • Recovery premiums, further slippage, inflation, staged staffing and the option’s benefits are unknown. The forecast has no probability or confidence interval.
      • 
        
    
      
    
      
    
        
    Keep gates and weaker signals visible
    
        
      
          
    • E01 still requires a recorded landlord handover for North opening. Lease approval alone is insufficient.
      • 
          
    • E05 requires customer access and retention controls before collecting records; E06 requires demand and sample coverage to be rechecked before capacity is committed.
      • 
          
    • Illustrative capacity is 6 × 22 = 132 jobs/week against demand of 140: an eight-job gap. It is a planning signal, not a measured service result or a fourth immediate approval.
      • 
          
    • TH-03’s two-job daily shortfall lacks a denominator or sample history. Watch the next sample; do not extrapolate it into the steady-state model.
      • 
        
    
      
    
    
    
    
    The three priorities follow the supplied anomaly flags and explicit gate/budget consequences, not an invented threshold on the scores. The scores’ scale is unspecified. Constraint “valid” numbers lack units, issue dates and an expiry convention: they are shown as source metadata and never treated as proof that evidence is current.
    
  
    

  
    
    
    Benchmark 1.0.0 · supplied synthetic records
    
    
    Evidence register
    
    
    Exact source observations are retained here, including the lower-priority watchlist. “Closed” is explicit only for LE-02. An absent closed field is not a confirmed approval state.
    
    
    Observations — latest supplied record is day 12
    ID / dayName / kindChangeOwner / suggested actionSource metadata
    
    
    Constraints — conditional rules, not confirmations of compliance
    ID / nameRuleEffectOwner“valid” metadata
    
    
    Fixed case values and acceptance checks
      
    Two hubs; 12-week target; £240,000 budget; six cross-trained staff; baseline 5 January 2026. Design 2 weeks; fit-out 24 staff-weeks; equipment lead 4 weeks after design; integration, pilot and readiness 2 weeks each. Fixed cost £120,000; staffing £1,200 per person-week; contingency £12,000; steady-state capacity 22 jobs per staff member per week; demand 140 jobs/week; average fee £45.
    
      
    Acceptance 1 — connect past, current and forecast: the story joins LE-02 to EQ-12 / SA-04 / BU-07 and the explicit schedule and cost model. It does not invent intervening approvals.
    
      
    Acceptance 2 — next three decisions and evidence in fewer than two navigation steps: all three decisions are visible together above. Each has a single disclosure to open its source evidence and conditions, with no tab or page change.