# Plan review capacity without promising readiness

LockedIn Labs · LockedIn FDE Training · FDE client-delivery capstone · Edition 2 · Core 35-minute lab

A sponsor wants to support 1,000 learners. Your task is to explain the review
work, calendar constraints and operational evidence needed before committing to
a delivery date. This is a synthetic planning exercise, not a claim about deployed
capacity, actual learners, staffing commitments or employment outcomes.

## The sponsor's proposed plan

All 1,000 initial artifacts are ready at the start of week 1. The delivery manager
proposes reviewing the first 500 in week 1 and the other 500 in week 2. Every
learner receives an individual review, even if the implementation was built as
a team. The sponsor has budgeted 25 reviewers and says: “That gives us 600 hours
in two weeks, so every review cycle can finish by the end of week 2.”

Here are the exercise assumptions. Keep assumptions separate from observations.

| Input | Supplied planning assumption |
| --- | --- |
| Initial artifacts | 1,000, all available at the start of week 1 |
| Initial review | 30 productive reviewer minutes per learner |
| Learners requiring another review | Exactly 30% of each initial-review batch |
| Further review | One 20-minute review for each revised artifact |
| Revision availability | Revised artifacts from a week's initial reviews arrive at the start of the following week; never sooner |
| Available reviewers | 25, each with 12 productive review hours per week |
| Reviewer capability | For arithmetic only, all reviewers can review either pass |
| Additional cycles | None in the base scenario; examine this assumption before a real pilot |

Productive hours here are hours actually available for reading work, giving
feedback and recording the review. They are not paid hours or contracted
availability. Instruction, mentoring, calibration, support, leave and governance
must be staffed separately; do not silently charge them to the same 12 hours.
The exercise does not establish that any real reviewer has appropriate authority.

## 1. Reconstruct the work (7 minutes)

Calculate initial-review hours, further-review hours and total productive hours.
Calculate productive capacity per week, then the theoretical reviewer count
from total hours divided by two weeks of per-reviewer capacity. Round required
people upward. State why this number is only an aggregate lower bound.

A completed review cycle means the scheduled reviews occurred. It does not mean
the learner passed, earned a credential or is ready for placement. Track those
separate decisions under their actual evidence and authority.

## 2. Put the dependencies on a calendar (10 minutes)

Fill this table for the manager's 500/500 plan. Carry pending work into the next
week instead of marking it complete because budget remains.

| Week | Initial reviews available / completed | Revisions available / completed | Hours used / capacity | Pending work and earliest availability |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | | | | |
| 2 | | | | |
| 3 | | | | |

Count the last batch's revision work even though it is not yet available in
week 2. Distinguish idle reviewer time from finished learner work. Explain to the
sponsor whether the original completion date follows from the assumptions.
Do not solve a scheduling problem by reducing individual review, changing
acceptance standards or recording a review that has not happened.

If the two-week deadline is fixed, calculate the reviewer count needed to finish
all initial reviews in week 1 so their revisions are available in week 2.
Assume, only for this alternative, that those additional qualified reviewers
can be scheduled. Explain what availability and calibration evidence is missing
before making that staffing promise. This is a possible schedule, not a hiring
recommendation or proof that the program can expand.

## 3. Respond to a changed assumption (10 minutes)

The pilot now suggests that 60%, rather than 30%, may require another review.
Treat this as a hypothetical new input, not an actual pilot result. Keep the
25-reviewer, 500/500 initial-review plan. Recalculate total demand and the week-2
queue. If initial reviews retain priority in week 2, show which revision work
carries into week 3 and how much capacity week 3 needs.

Then list three assumptions that a real pilot must replace with evidence:

- Review duration distribution, including difficult artifacts and recording time.
- Revision rate, number of cycles and when learners actually resubmit.
- Reviewer availability, scope of authority, calibration and support demand.

A small pilot's mean is not a guarantee. Record sample size, course stage,
work type and uncertainty. Use a range when scheduling; agree the action when
a backlog exceeds capacity. Possible actions include changing intake timing or
securing qualified capacity, not lowering the evidence required from learners.

## 4. Defend the next intake decision (8 minutes)

Write a short sponsor note stating the base demand, the calendar constraint,
the changed-assumption consequence and a proposed next intake decision. Attach
one named role to each unknown: program owner, reviewer lead or learner-support
lead. In this simulation use role placeholders, not invented people or approvals.

Give a partner your table and ask them to locate the final batch's revision work
without explanation. Have them challenge a staffing assumption and ask what
would stop the next intake wave. Record the actual question and your revised
answer. If working alone, label this self-review.

Keep your calculations, proposed schedule, assumptions and receiver observation
with the capstone packet. The protected Academy capstone explains the worked
interpretation after your attempt. Program licensing, provisioned seats, course
completion, provider credentials and field qualification remain separate facts;
a capacity spreadsheet does not establish any of them.

## Optional extension — plan separate review lanes (25 minutes)

The base exercise assumed every reviewer could review either pass. Challenge
that assumption with this separate fictional cohort of **360 learners**, not an
additional batch of 1,000. This extension adds twenty-five minutes. Its roles and
weekly barriers are supplied planning rules, not this platform's qualification
policy or evidence that any actual reviewer is authorized.

### Define the handoffs before adding the hours (5 minutes)

Keep the same 25 reviewers and 12 productive hours each per week. Twenty have
the general-review role; five have the specialist role. Do not transfer work
between roles or assume dual authorization. The existing total of 30 minutes
for an initial review and 20 minutes for a revision now has two distinct stages:

| Stage | Required practice role | Time per artifact | When it can start |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Initial general review | General | 20 minutes | All 360 artifacts are ready at the start of week 1 |
| Initial specialist review | Specialist | 10 minutes | Start of the week after the general stage completes |
| Revised general review | General | 10 minutes | Exactly 30% of each completed initial specialist batch returns revised at the start of the following week |
| Revised specialist review | Specialist | 10 minutes | Start of the week after its revised general stage completes |

No further revision cycle is supplied. A stage completed early in a week still
does not make the next stage available that same week. This artificial barrier
makes the scheduling problem explicit; a real program must observe actual
handoff and resubmission times. A completed review is not a passing decision.

Before calculating, draw the four stages and label the responsible role and
earliest next-week handoff. A specialist's available hours cannot make an
unavailable revised artifact appear sooner.

### Schedule each role without borrowing authority (8 minutes)

Calculate weekly general and specialist capacity separately. Then calculate
their initial work and the revision work for the 108 revised artifacts.
Keep your first schedule before reading the interpretation below.

| Week | General stage and artifacts completed | General hours used / available | Specialist stage and artifacts completed | Specialist hours used / available | Work waiting for another week |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | | | | | |
| 2 | | | | | |
| 3 | | | | | |
| 4 | | | | | |

After preserving your attempt, compare this worked schedule. General capacity
is 240 hours per week; specialist capacity is 60. Initial work takes 120 general
hours and 60 specialist hours. Revision work takes 18 hours in each role.
Total work is 216 hours, but the four stage dependencies prevent finishing the
cohort in one week even though aggregate weekly capacity is 300 hours.

Week 1 completes 360 initial general reviews in 120 hours. Week 2 completes
their specialist stage in 60 hours. Week 3 completes 108 revised general reviews
in 18 hours; week 4 completes their specialist stage in another 18 hours.
Record the intervening waits. The earliest completion of this supplied schedule
is week 4. Calling the unused general hours “spare specialist capacity” would
silently change the role assumption rather than repair the plan.

### Receive a competing commitment (7 minutes)

The specialist lead now reports that **20 of week 2's 60 hours are already
reserved for another cohort**. Keep those hours reserved. All other supplied
availability and stage rules remain unchanged. Revise your schedule before
reading the interpretation. Do not reduce review duration or standards.

Forty available specialist hours complete 240 initial artifacts in week 2;
120 wait for week 3, needing 20 hours. The first batch yields 72 revisions whose
general stage takes 12 hours in week 3 and specialist stage takes 12 hours in
week 4. The remaining batch yields 36 revisions: six general hours in week 4
and six specialist hours in week 5. Total demand is still 216 hours, but the
last required stage now finishes in week 5. Retain both schedules and identify
which handoff moved each affected batch.

This is why the program needs the reservation, role and arrival time beside an
aggregate staffing figure. The original total hours did not become wrong; they
were insufficient to justify the date. In a real program, ask the reviewer lead
for appropriately scoped availability and the learner-support lead for revision
arrival evidence before committing an intake.

### Give the sponsor one decision they can make (5 minutes)

Write a five-sentence note: the unchanged workload, the constrained role/week,
the shifted final handoff, one feasible intake decision and the evidence or
authorization that decision still needs. Use role placeholders, not invented
approvals. A proposal to add specialist capacity needs evidence of the actual
reviewers' scope and availability; a general seat cannot supply it by relabeling.

Give a partner your schedule and ask them to locate the 36 revised artifacts
without your explanation. Record their actual path and one question. If alone,
label self-review. Keep **role | stage | artifact count | arrival week | reserved
capacity | completion week | remaining evidence** with your capacity proposal.
Do not describe these authored numbers as a staffed delivery commitment or
qualification throughput.