# Lesson 11 practice: What value claim can a time saving support?

[中文](README.md)

Distinguish a possible reduction in work from a financial benefit that could support a budget. Open [scenarios.csv](scenarios.csv). The eligible task volumes, acceptance rates, and savings are assumptions from Beichen’s public scenario. Each has a four-minute and a six-minute review variant. These six rows are combinations of assumptions, not six measurements. Acceptance is not effective completion. Without completion and cost evidence, annual net benefits cannot yet be estimated.

## Fields

| Field | Meaning |
| --- | --- |
| `scenario_id` | Conservative, central, or optimistic scenario and review duration |
| `eligible_tasks_per_year` | Assumed annual eligible tasks: 60,000 / 90,000 / 140,000 |
| `acceptance_rate` | Assumed acceptance: 0.20 / 0.35 / 0.55; not effective completion |
| `saved_minutes_per_effective_task` | Assumed operational time saved per effective task: 3 / 5 / 12 minutes |
| `review_minutes_per_reviewed_task` | Assumed extra time per reviewed task: four or six minutes |
| `effective_completed_tasks_per_year` | Unknown annual effective completions; left blank |
| `reviewed_tasks_per_year` | Unknown annual reviewed tasks; left blank |

Do not replace either blank with zero or with eligible tasks multiplied by acceptance. Rejected and unfinished attempts may also consume review time.

## Calculate with explicit assumptions

1. Start with a conditional per-task comparison. Assume one task completes effectively and both savings and review apply to that same task. Calculate `saved − review`. With four-minute review, the results are **−1 / +1 / +8 minutes**. With six-minute review, they are **−3 / −1 / +6 minutes**. These are conditional comparisons, not measured net savings.
2. Use a separate illustration: of 100 eligible tasks, 35 complete effectively, each saves five minutes, and only those 35 receive four minutes of extra review. That saves 175 minutes, adds 140, and reduces work by 35 minutes. Six-minute review adds 210 minutes and increases work by 35. The 35 completions are a new illustration, not evidence for filling the CSV.
3. Change the review population. If all 100 tasks receive four minutes of review, review adds 400 minutes and total work increases by 225. List the task-level evidence needed: eligibility, acceptance, completion, effectiveness, step timings, review coverage, and exception handling.
4. Identify whose work changes, then consider knowledge maintenance, support, model use, integration, governance, and exit costs. Keep unsupported entries unknown rather than making the budget appear complete.
5. Write a supported conclusion and next step. For example: “The central scenario is sensitive to review duration. Measure effective completion and actual review coverage before estimating annual net benefits.” Evidence may also support keeping the current plan; a changed conclusion is not required.

## Check your reasoning

The original benefit slide’s arithmetic, `200,000 × 12 ÷ 60 × 200 = CNY 8,000,000`, is correct. Its assumptions about applicable tasks, effective completion, review, additional costs, and realizing saved time remain unproven. Less work does not automatically reduce cash spending. Nor can improvements during a supplier change be attributed entirely to the assistant. These scenarios do not provide enough evidence to estimate annual net benefits.

When studying alone, submit formulas, assumptions, missing evidence, and a proposed next step. Do not invent financial approval. A peer can recalculate using a different review population.

Continue to Lesson 12 and put the value claim’s scope, unresolved questions, and follow-up responsibilities into your handover record.