Research replication
The operating model before the platform
Open the exact fictional inputs behind each worked study. Project cases use their companion model; auxiliary cash bridges retain a separate, verifiable calculation.
Return to the paper↗These are illustrative scenarios, not actual project or supplier data. Inputs and method boundaries govern each result.
Illustrative study
Illustrative operating capability reference
Expose the first selected dependency bundle and later marginal ranking.
What changes
- Changed: No comparison change; authored reference input.
- Held constant: This slate is the basis for single-variable comparisons.
- Comparison: Expose the first selected dependency bundle and later marginal ranking.
Limits of the study
- Explicitly illustrative assumptions, not observed enterprise costs, benefit rates or adoption likelihoods.
- Additive annual benefit discounted by two judgment multipliers; no interaction, overlap, operating expenditure, discounting or realised value.
- Dependency closure with deterministic greedy ranking under budget and effort constraints; no claim of global optimality or implementation feasibility.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Illustrative weak ownership readiness
Show that a readiness multiplier is not a categorical ownership gate.
What changes
- Changed: Only OWN readiness changes from 90 to 20 percent.
- Held constant: All capability costs, annual benefits, confidence judgments, efforts, dependencies, budget and effort capacity remain reference values.
- Comparison: Show that a readiness multiplier is not a categorical ownership gate.
Limits of the study
- Explicitly illustrative assumptions, not observed enterprise costs, benefit rates or adoption likelihoods.
- Additive annual benefit discounted by two judgment multipliers; no interaction, overlap, operating expenditure, discounting or realised value.
- Dependency closure with deterministic greedy ranking under budget and effort constraints; no claim of global optimality or implementation feasibility.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Illustrative weak data readiness
Separate lower assumed enabler benefit from missing data acceptance evidence.
What changes
- Changed: Only DATA readiness changes from 80 to 20 percent.
- Held constant: All capability costs, annual benefits, confidence judgments, efforts, dependencies, budget and effort capacity remain reference values.
- Comparison: Separate lower assumed enabler benefit from missing data acceptance evidence.
Limits of the study
- Explicitly illustrative assumptions, not observed enterprise costs, benefit rates or adoption likelihoods.
- Additive annual benefit discounted by two judgment multipliers; no interaction, overlap, operating expenditure, discounting or realised value.
- Dependency closure with deterministic greedy ranking under budget and effort constraints; no claim of global optimality or implementation feasibility.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Illustrative higher operations readiness
Test a ranking switch as a declared judgment changes.
What changes
- Changed: Only OPS readiness changes from 65 to 95 percent.
- Held constant: All capability costs, annual benefits, confidence judgments, efforts, dependencies, budget and effort capacity remain reference values.
- Comparison: Test a ranking switch as a declared judgment changes.
Limits of the study
- Explicitly illustrative assumptions, not observed enterprise costs, benefit rates or adoption likelihoods.
- Additive annual benefit discounted by two judgment multipliers; no interaction, overlap, operating expenditure, discounting or realised value.
- Dependency closure with deterministic greedy ranking under budget and effort constraints; no claim of global optimality or implementation feasibility.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Illustrative constrained delivery effort
Show a feasible budget does not imply sufficient delivery effort.
What changes
- Changed: Only effort capacity changes from 40 to 24 person-months.
- Held constant: Budget and every capability field remain reference values.
- Comparison: Show a feasible budget does not imply sufficient delivery effort.
Limits of the study
- Explicitly illustrative assumptions, not observed enterprise costs, benefit rates or adoption likelihoods.
- Additive annual benefit discounted by two judgment multipliers; no interaction, overlap, operating expenditure, discounting or realised value.
- Dependency closure with deterministic greedy ranking under budget and effort constraints; no claim of global optimality or implementation feasibility.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Illustrative constrained capital envelope
Distinguish a cost constraint from an effort constraint even if the selected set agrees.
What changes
- Changed: Only budget changes from 500 to 300 USD thousands.
- Held constant: Effort capacity and every capability field remain reference values.
- Comparison: Distinguish a cost constraint from an effort constraint even if the selected set agrees.
Limits of the study
- Explicitly illustrative assumptions, not observed enterprise costs, benefit rates or adoption likelihoods.
- Additive annual benefit discounted by two judgment multipliers; no interaction, overlap, operating expenditure, discounting or realised value.
- Dependency closure with deterministic greedy ranking under budget and effort constraints; no claim of global optimality or implementation feasibility.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Illustrative unavailable resource envelope
Confirm that a valid zero selection is reported without inventing a programme.
What changes
- Changed: Budget and effort capacity both become zero.
- Held constant: All capability fields retain reference values.
- Comparison: Confirm that a valid zero selection is reported without inventing a programme.
Limits of the study
- Explicitly illustrative assumptions, not observed enterprise costs, benefit rates or adoption likelihoods.
- Additive annual benefit discounted by two judgment multipliers; no interaction, overlap, operating expenditure, discounting or realised value.
- Dependency closure with deterministic greedy ranking under budget and effort constraints; no claim of global optimality or implementation feasibility.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Illustrative prerequisite without direct benefit
Show a zero-benefit prerequisite can be included in a positive-benefit closure.
What changes
- Changed: Independent authored dependency boundary case.
- Held constant: The declared budget and effort exactly accommodate the complete bundle.
- Comparison: Show a zero-benefit prerequisite can be included in a positive-benefit closure.
Limits of the study
- Explicitly illustrative assumptions, not observed enterprise costs, benefit rates or adoption likelihoods.
- Additive annual benefit discounted by two judgment multipliers; no interaction, overlap, operating expenditure, discounting or realised value.
- Dependency closure with deterministic greedy ranking under budget and effort constraints; no claim of global optimality or implementation feasibility.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Illustrative greedy counterexample
Demonstrate that the highest first ratio can exclude a better feasible combination.
What changes
- Changed: Independent authored counterexample with additive benefits and no dependencies.
- Held constant: Both judgments are full multipliers; budget and effort are explicitly declared.
- Comparison: Demonstrate that the highest first ratio can exclude a better feasible combination.
Limits of the study
- Explicitly illustrative assumptions, not observed enterprise costs, benefit rates or adoption likelihoods.
- Additive annual benefit discounted by two judgment multipliers; no interaction, overlap, operating expenditure, discounting or realised value.
- Dependency closure with deterministic greedy ranking under budget and effort constraints; no claim of global optimality or implementation feasibility.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Illustrative feasible alternative menu
Execute the named B and C alternative under the same envelope; do not call this an optimisation result.
What changes
- Changed: Only option A is removed from the greedy-trap menu.
- Held constant: B and C fields and resource envelope are unchanged; this restricted menu is a demonstrably feasible comparison.
- Comparison: Execute the named B and C alternative under the same envelope; do not call this an optimisation result.
Limits of the study
- Explicitly illustrative assumptions, not observed enterprise costs, benefit rates or adoption likelihoods.
- Additive annual benefit discounted by two judgment multipliers; no interaction, overlap, operating expenditure, discounting or realised value.
- Dependency closure with deterministic greedy ranking under budget and effort constraints; no claim of global optimality or implementation feasibility.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Illustrative exact resource boundary: minimum positive commitment
Expose admission and remainder meanings at a canonical decimal resource boundary.
What changes
- Test: Exact resource admission
- Intervention: Supply the printed complete miniature capability slate and the specified envelopes.
- Held constant: The complete illustrative fixture and the canonical bounded greedy selection method.
Limits of the study
- An authored numerical boundary is not a real resource estimate or operating service.
- Exact resource admission does not establish global optimality, benefits, permission or calendar feasibility.
Open this case in the model↗Illustrative study
Illustrative exact resource boundary: decimal equality
Expose admission and remainder meanings at a canonical decimal resource boundary.
What changes
- Test: Exact resource admission
- Intervention: Supply the printed complete miniature capability slate and the specified envelopes.
- Held constant: The complete illustrative fixture and the canonical bounded greedy selection method.
Limits of the study
- An authored numerical boundary is not a real resource estimate or operating service.
- Exact resource admission does not establish global optimality, benefits, permission or calendar feasibility.
Open this case in the model↗