# Prioritization case packet — entirely fictional

Version 075.1, 2026-09-04. Original OpenMax editorial exercise. Not customer data, real survey findings, product execution or an approved roadmap. All source labels below refer to invented records in this packet, not documents that exist elsewhere.

## Decision contract

Q4 2026; improve weekly owner review of shared work queues, measured eventually as review completion without support. Same eligible workspace cohort throughout. Reach is projected distinct workspace accounts using the change during the quarter, not people or ticket count. Forecast values are supplied for an arithmetic exercise, not derived from a claimed raw dataset. Impact and confidence are supplied planning judgments, not measured causal effects or calibrated probabilities.

Effort = product, design, engineering and test person-months. Capacity = 8. No claim that a staffing calendar has been validated. F00 is a case-owner-designated mandatory access repair costing 2. F05 event normalization costs 1 and is required by F02/F03. Reserve it once outside candidate scores. Discretionary capacity = 8 − 2 − 1 = 5.

## Six synthetic source records

| Record | Supplied case information | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| P01, frozen 2026-09-04 | F01 saved views: R240, I1, C0.8, incremental E1.5 | No real usage experiment or customer acquisition result |
| P02, frozen 2026-09-04 | F02 queue digest: R360, I1, C0.5, incremental E2; needs F05 | No evidence supporting the later hypothetical increase to C0.8 |
| P03, frozen 2026-09-04 | F03 duplicate grouping: R180, I2, C0.8, incremental E2; needs F05 | No proof that E2 survives a scope review |
| P04, frozen 2026-09-04 | F04 automatic priority labels: reach unknown; impact, confidence and effort not approved | No score, not a zero, not a rejected idea |
| P05, frozen 2026-09-04 | F00 mandatory 2; F05 shared prerequisite 1; capacity total 8 | No legal or security judgment, no staffing schedule |
| P06, frozen 2026-09-04 | What-if changes: F03 E3.5; separately F02 C0.8; also combine them | No probabilities, no statistical confidence interval |

## RICE calculations and expected decisions

Use R×I×C/E. Base F01 = 240×1×0.8/1.5 = 128. F02 = 360×1×0.5/2 = 90. F03 = 180×2×0.8/2 = 144. F04 is unscored. F00/F05 do not compete in this ranking.

1. Base order: F03 > F01 > F02. Propose F03+F01: incremental 3.5; with reserves total6.5; remainder1.5. F02 E2 does not fit unchanged.
2. F03 effort-only scenario: score288/3.5 = 82.285714..., displayed82.29. Order F01 > F02 > F03.
3. F02 confidence-only scenario: score360×1×0.8/2 = 144. F02 and F03 tie; F01 is128. Discuss tie; do not invent an unrecorded tiebreak.
4. Combined scenario: F02 144 > F01 128 > F03 82.29. Propose F02+F01: incremental3.5, total6.5, remainder1.5.

These proposals are not optimality proofs. Do not sum overlapping reach. F05 remains one shared cost in both proposals. A scope-reduced F02 requires a new boundary and new impact/effort estimates. Unknown F04 enters a discovery queue with a human owner, not an invented low score.

## Separate method demonstrations, not extra scores for F01–F04

ICE per the cited GrowthHackers averaging convention: X=(9,2,9) ->20/3=6.6667; Y=(6,6,6)->6. Multiplication would give X162, Y216, reversing rank. High ease means easier. These values are unrelated to case candidate evidence.

Opportunity exercise: 100 fictional same-segment respondents. O1 top-two-box importance80, satisfaction40, same denominator100. Express percentage/10: I8,S4; I+max(0,I−S)=12. O2 importance50, satisfaction70 ->I5,S7 ->5. Input counts are invented; this is not a completed ODI research study. Neither result proves a particular feature works.

WSJF exercise: relative delay13 / size5 =2.6; relative delay8 / size2 =4. The latter ranks earlier under these assumptions. No currency. Job duration and total person-effort are not assumed interchangeable.

No Kano survey is supplied. No weighted scorecard is supplied. Do not invent those outputs for this packet.

## Reviewer checks

- Preserve P01–P06 and F00–F05, quarter, units and source fiction labels.
- Keep observed facts, supplied forecasts and hypothetical changes distinct.
- Recalculate all four scenarios; retain the genuine tie.
- Reconcile capacity exactly, charge the shared prerequisite once.
- Do not convert unknown to zero or estimates into evidence.
- Return a proposal, missing-information list and not-now explanation; do not update any system.
- The product owner decides; relevant qualified owners must establish real mandatory constraints.

## Primary references used in the article

- RICE: https://www.intercom.com/blog/rice-simple-prioritization-for-product-managers/
- ICE: https://growthhackers.happyfox.com/kb/article/3-prioritizing-your-ideas-with-ice/?section_id=2
- Opportunity formula: https://strategyn.com/outcome-driven-innovation/market-opportunity/
- Opportunity input proportions: https://strategyn.com/quantify-your-customers-unmet-needs/
- WSJF public overview: https://framework.scaledagile.com/wsjf/

The article contains the remaining method references. Sources explain methods; they do not authenticate this invented case.