Mid standard

• I identify task dependencies, minimum usable scope and consequences of each deadline because starting both may leave neither deliverable usable. I check whether some work can be prepared by others or reviewed asynchronously without pretending all specialist time can be delegated.
• I offer a sequence, a scope reduction, a deadline move or qualified extra capacity with explicit consequences because the conflict is a portfolio decision. I identify who may decide and avoid promising both unchanged commitments from an infeasible plan.
• I record the selected trade-off and baseline, assign the specialist time and track remaining work because nominal percentages don't prove completion. I set an early escalation point if estimates rise or the specialist becomes unavailable.

Lessons to prepare

Mid standard

• I trace design, integration, testing, training and approval dependencies because adding a source affects more than coding time. I use ranges and confidence, check the critical path and show which existing work would be displaced.
• I present an unchanged release plus a later increment, reduced scope at the current date, or a revised date with the new scope because the sponsor needs concrete options. I state quality and control boundaries that can't be silently traded away.
• I record the decision owner, revised baseline, acceptance checks and communication plan because informal agreement can create contradictory expectations. I track residual risks and preserve the prior release or rollback path for an integration failure.

Lessons to prepare

Mid standard

• I use bounded scenarios for the dependency and show downstream effects because one invented date hides risk. I identify work that can proceed independently, a fallback and the latest date when a launch decision can still change safely.
• I state the confirmed work, the unresolved dependency and a conditional date with its decision threshold because a confident promise can't remove missing evidence. I give the sponsor choices about scope, contingency and external communication.
• I agree milestone evidence, review dates and escalation triggers because repeating an optimistic forecast isn't risk management. If a threshold is missed I activate the approved fallback or seek a new scope-date decision and update affected stakeholders.

Lessons to prepare

Mid standard

• The A-B-D path takes two plus four plus two equals eight working days, while A-C-D takes seven. The critical path is A-B-D and C has one working day of total slack because D waits for B in the base plan.
• A one-day delay consumes C's one day of slack and leaves completion at eight working days because C and B then both finish at day six. I check whether the delay also changes resources or acceptance timing before treating the schedule effect as isolated.
• I track remaining duration and predecessor acceptance with owners because percent complete doesn't prove that D can start. I escalate slippage on critical or newly critical paths and rebaseline only after an authorized scope or date decision.

Lessons to prepare

Mid standard

• I inspect when testable increments become available and which testers are qualified because weekly totals can hide an impossible Friday handoff. I ask whether analyst preparation or automation can reduce testing work without removing required assurance.
• I present moving one deliverable, reducing an independently usable scope or adding eight qualified test hours because the unchanged commitments exceed capacity. I compare value and obligation with the authorized portfolio owner rather than allocating both teams an impossible percentage.
• I record the approved scope-date choice, skill assignments and acceptance criteria because informal priority can change without visible consequences. I monitor remaining test work and readiness dates, with an early trigger for another decision if demand exceeds the revised capacity.

Lessons to prepare

Mid standard

• Expected delay is 0.25 times eight equals two working days because the planning scenario assigns an eight-day impact to one quarter of outcomes. Actual delivery will not necessarily be two days late; the tail remains an eight-day event, so a date promise needs more than the mean.
• I set a decision trigger before day five based on confirmed supplier acceptance evidence because after that point the alternative may no longer protect launch. I compare the 120-unit response cost with the business impact of delay, qualify the alternative and obtain the sponsor's authorized choice.
• I require dated milestone evidence and a readiness check for the alternative because a supplier's optimistic percentage doesn't remove the risk. I record residual delay and close the risk only when the component is accepted and downstream integration can proceed.

Lessons to prepare