E21 · Choose feasible scope
Synthetic practice, not company performance.
One decision
Which opportunity fits actual capacity?
Run the exact query
SELECT * FROM plan_opportunities ORDER BY eng_weeks;
Download SQL · Result CSV · Metabase saved question
Chart and reading
Account for dependencies and separate engineering, design and review weeks.
Challenge your recommendation
What if reviewer capacity, not engineering, is binding?
Guardrails: Proposed estimates, no effect size or confidence probability; high reach is not a forecast.
Next evidence: Actual capacity, range estimates, demand evidence and opportunity cost.
PRD sections: 1, 4, 16. Open proposed PRD
Your spoken decision
State one takeaway, one caveat and one action in 30 seconds. Then stop.
Connect this finding
What this chart helps decide · Follow the connected decision · Canonical metric definitions
Optional model answer — try your own first
E21 · Choose feasible scope
Decision: Which opportunity fits actual capacity?
Readout: Account for dependencies and separate engineering, design and review weeks.
Actual query output (synthetic), first rows:
| opportunity_id | name | eng_weeks | design_weeks | review_weeks | dependency | low_reach | high_reach | source_id |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OP1 | Explain entitlements before render | 2.2 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 50 | 180 | PLAN | |
| OP3 | Webhook recovery and reconciliation | 3.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 15 | 85 | PLAN | |
| OP2 | Version-bound locale review | 4.1 | 1.5 | 1.4 | OP1 | 30 | 120 | PLAN |
Model spoken answer: I would fund one bounded workflow and name what is deferred, after checking all constrained roles.
Caveat/counterargument: What if reviewer capacity, not engineering, is binding? Proposed estimates, no effect size or confidence probability; high reach is not a forecast.
Next evidence: Actual capacity, range estimates, demand evidence and opportunity cost.
Deliberately left out: Treating person-weeks as a calendar completion promise.