Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition · Updated 1 September 2026
PWR-237 · SUPERVISED full tutorial
Apply an authorised resource-allocation rule with transparent criteria, distribution checks and appeal
This lesson teaches the complete supervised allocation method: establish mandate and finite resource, define the legitimate purpose, identify affected people and access barriers, predeclare criteria and tie-breaks, disclose conflicts, apply the rule consistently to fictional cases, inspect distribution and harms, provide appeal, and review outcomes. No real resources are allocated.
What you will produceIn a qualified-facilitator exercise, the learner applies a predeclared fictional allocation rule to eight cases, records exclusions and distribution, and processes one appeal without changing the rule after seeing identities.
Method10 numbered Power-specific steps
Practice authorityFull method with qualified supervision where stated
Full step-by-step individual tutorial · TLU-PWR-237
In a qualified-facilitator exercise, the learner applies a predeclared fictional allocation rule to eight cases, records exclusions and distribution, and processes one appeal without changing the rule after seeing identities.
Learn criteria, question evidence and participate in a fictional allocation workshop.
Ask how access, disability, burden, conflicts, reasons and appeal are handled.
Recommend deferral when mandate, data quality or fair process is missing.
Qualified help is required for
Any allocation of money, staff, care, benefits, scarce goods, emergency support, education or public resources.
Selection of need/benefit criteria, legal equality duties, clinical judgement and appeal authority.
Use of personal or protected information and implementation monitoring.
Never do this from the page alone
Rank real people or allocate real resources using the fixture.
Change criteria after seeing a preferred recipient.
Treat efficiency, consistency or a numerical score as proof of fairness or human worth.
2 · Get ready
Gather what you need and check the starting conditions
What you need
Qualified facilitator, fictional mandate and 12 appointment-hours to distribute as six identical two-hour awards across eight invented requests.
The predeclared score is: urgent access barrier, 2 points if the service is unusable within seven days without the appointment, 1 if degraded and 0 otherwise; expected benefit, 2 high, 1 moderate, 0 weak; no comparable alternative within 14 days, 1 point, otherwise 0. Unreadable or missing information is clarified before scoring, never scored as zero. Highest total wins; a recorded seed orders equal-score cases R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R8.
Eight supplied two-hour cards: R1 has barrier 2, benefit 2, no-alternative 1, total 5; R2 has 2, 2, 0, total 4; R3 has 2, 1, 1, total 4; R4 has 1, 2, 1, total 4; R5 has 1, 1, 1, total 3; R6 has 0, 2, 1, total 3; R7's inaccessible format initially hides the fields 2, 2, 1, which total 5 after supported clarification; R8 has 0, 1, 0, total 1. Also supply a conflict declaration, distribution table, reason notice and appeal card.
Before you start
Confirm that all cases and resources are fictional and outputs cannot enter a live process.
Identify the authority that would control a real allocation and the facilitator who controls this exercise.
Predeclare purpose, criteria, weights if any, tie-break, uncertainty treatment and appeal before opening cases.
3 · The method
Follow these steps in order
State mandate and resource
Write who may allocate what amount, for what purpose, over what period and what remains prohibited.
Why: Allocation begins with authority and a real constraint.
Check: The exact fictional quantity and decision owner are clear.
Identify affected access
List who may benefit or be excluded, application barriers, support needs and missing perspectives.
Why: Equal rules can produce unequal access.
Check: The exercise records access conditions before ranking cases.
Define criteria and evidence
Operationalise need, expected benefit, urgency or other authorised factors and state what evidence counts and its limits.
Why: Vague scoring criteria let hidden preferences decide which request receives hours.
Check: Two facilitators could apply each criterion similarly.
Set tie-break and uncertainty rule
Decide what happens to equal cases, missing data and low-confidence estimates without penalising access needs.
Why: Post-hoc tie-breaking lets case identity influence an ostensibly equal score.
Check: The rule exists before any case identity is seen.
Declare conflicts and recusal
Each decision role notes relationships, incentives or interests and follows the facilitator’s reassignment route.
Why: Transparency requires action, not just disclosure.
Check: No conflicted person scores the related case.
Apply the rule to all cases
Score or classify every fictional case using the same evidence window and record a reason, including excluded and deferred cases.
Why: Consistency can be checked only with a complete trace.
Check: Every decision has criteria-level reasons, not a bare total.
Inspect distribution and harm
Compare who receives, waits or is excluded; check access groups, burden, alternatives and potential adverse effects.
Why: A consistent rule can still distribute harm unfairly.
Check: The facilitator sees the full distribution before finalising.
Issue reasons and appeal
Provide a fictional notice with evidence used, reasons, correction route and independent review deadline.
Why: People need a usable challenge, not hidden mathematics.
Check: The appeal can correct facts or process without retaliation.
Process one appeal
Use a card correcting one material fact; the independent role reapplies the predeclared rule and records whether the outcome changes.
Why: Appeal tests correction rather than favour.
Check: The original and reviewed decisions remain traceable.
Review outcomes and revise prospectively
Compare intended purpose, actual distribution, unmet need and harms; revise only for future rounds under authority.
Why: Retroactive rule changes undermine consistency and trust.
Check: Any change has a date, rationale and new approval.
4 · Worked example
See the whole method used once
Scenario
A fictional community centre has 12 appointment-hours and eight invented requests; the facilitator supplies a mandate prioritising urgent access barriers and expected benefit, with random tie-break after review.
Walkthrough
Before seeing cards, participants define each criterion, the missing-data route and a random tie-break and record that a staff member with a fictional relationship must recuse.
They score R1 to R6 and R8, defer rather than down-score unreadable R7, and initially allocate 12 hours to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and R6; R8 is waitlisted.
The distribution table exposes R7's format barrier, so the facilitator provides supported clarification and confirms its fields as 2, 2 and 1, total 5.
An independent appeal admits the clarified evidence. Reapplying the unchanged rule allocates R1, R7, R2, R3, R4 and R5; R6 and R8 are waitlisted, and both versions are preserved.
Result
The workshop demonstrates traceable criteria, access repair and appeal on fictional cases. It neither proves the rule fair nor authorises real allocation.
5 · Right and wrong
Compare correct or safer execution with the common wrong version
Right and wrong comparison
Moment
Right / safer
Wrong / riskier
Why it matters
Setting criteria
Define barrier, benefit and alternative-support points before opening request cards.
Use words like need and merit without definitions.
Vague criteria let personal preference enter the score unnoticed.
Handling missing data
Offer supported clarification for unreadable R7 or defer it without a zero.
Score missing information as low need.
Access barriers can be mistaken for lack of need.
Checking fairness
Inspect which scores, formats and access barriers shape the final six awards.
Report only total benefit or utilisation.
Aggregate efficiency can hide who bears harm.
Changing rules
Apply approved score changes prospectively, then preserve both allocation versions.
Adjust a weight to include a favoured case.
Post-hoc changes destroy the declared process.
6 · Common mistakes
Spot the error and apply the correction
Common mistakes and corrections
Mistake
Fix
The available appointment-hours are never quantified.
State exact amount, period and minimum unit before allocation.
One need fact is counted in two criteria.
Define each factor and check the same fact is not scored twice.
Unreadable R7 information is scored as low need.
Use supported clarification or uncertainty/defer rule.
A declared relationship does not remove the scorer.
Recuse and reassign scoring for the affected case.
The appeal has no independent reviewer with remedy authority.
Name the distinct reviewer and what remedy they may order.
7 · Practice
Turn the steps into a usable skill
First session
Review mandate, resource, affected access and non-goals with the facilitator.
Predeclare criteria, evidence, uncertainty and tie-break.
Apply the rule to all eight fictional cards with reason traces.
Inspect distribution and issue fictional notices.
Process one appeal and make any prospective revision recommendation.
Repeat plan
The qualified provider controls exercise frequency and case complexity. Repeat on a new fictional set only after scoring consistency and appeal work; real allocation requires the authorised body, current law and affected-person process.
Progress when
Two authorised scorers apply criteria consistently or reconcile defined ambiguities.
Missingness and access barriers use the declared support route rather than automatic exclusion.
Distribution, reasons, conflicts and appeals remain complete and reviewable.
Do not progress when
Cases are real or identifiable, or output could enter staffing, clinical, benefits, emergency, financial or public decisions.
Mandate, legal duties, criteria authority or independent appeal is missing.
Participants begin using scores as a measure of worth or fairness proof.
8 · Check the result
Measure what changed
Traceable application and review of one authorised fictional allocation rule
How: Score criteria consistency, evidence quality, missing-data handling, conflict action, distribution, reason notices, appeal and versioned revision across all cases.
Good result: A good result applies the predeclared rule to every case, repairs access barriers, completes independent appeal and keeps all distribution effects visible.
This does not prove: It does not establish fairness, outcome benefit, lawful implementation or authority to rank or allocate real people/resources.
Self-check
What exact resource and mandate are being applied?
How does the rule treat missing evidence without punishing access barriers?
Who receives, waits and is excluded, and what burdens appear?
Can an independent reviewer correct a fact and reapply the same rule?
9 · Stop, adapt or get help
Keep the safety boundary practical
Stop and get help
Stop if any real person, scarce resource, urgent need or confidential data enters the exercise.
Stop when the group lacks mandate, legal/equality guidance, affected-person input or appeal authority.
Route clinical, emergency, benefits, employment, financial and public allocations to the accountable authority and specialists.
Accessibility and adaptations
Provide applications, evidence clarification, notices and appeals in accessible formats and needed languages.
Allow supported decision-making, interpreters, AAC and longer response windows without treating support as lower merit.
Audit whether the process itself excludes people before evaluating outcome distribution.
10 · Evidence and limits
Why these instructions are here
official guidance
WHO ethics guidance for scarce-resource allocation emphasises transparent, relevant, consistent and revisable processes; it does not validate one universal ranking rule.
All cases and resources are fictional; real allocation is prohibited.
Consistency and efficiency do not prove fairness.
Criteria, distribution, appeal and outcomes require ongoing authorised review.
Efficiency or consistency cannot establish fairness or justify ranking human worth.
Official ethics guidance does not show that any single rule was implemented fairly or improved outcomes; procedural compliance can coexist with distributive harm.
Open the complete canonical research register
Official normative system supportLimiting / contrary
Progress is saved only in this browser on this device.
Step-by-step learner mode
Each activity includes its success check, a nearby accessible alternative and an “I’m stuck” correction path. Alternatives preserve the target where possible; when they change the task, Titan labels them as related rather than equivalent.
01
State mandate and resource
Write who may allocate what amount, for what purpose, over what period and what remains prohibited.
Why this step exists
Allocation begins with authority and a real constraint.
Success check
The exact fictional quantity and decision owner are clear.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Write who may allocate what amount, for what purpose, over what period and what remains prohibited.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The available appointment-hours are never quantified.
Correction: State exact amount, period and minimum unit before allocation.
Stop / get help: Stop if any real person, scarce resource, urgent need or confidential data enters the exercise.
02
Identify affected access
List who may benefit or be excluded, application barriers, support needs and missing perspectives.
Why this step exists
Equal rules can produce unequal access.
Success check
The exercise records access conditions before ranking cases.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “List who may benefit or be excluded, application barriers, support needs and missing perspectives.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: A declared relationship does not remove the scorer.
Correction: Recuse and reassign scoring for the affected case.
Stop / get help: Stop if any real person, scarce resource, urgent need or confidential data enters the exercise.
03
Define criteria and evidence
Operationalise need, expected benefit, urgency or other authorised factors and state what evidence counts and its limits.
Why this step exists
Vague scoring criteria let hidden preferences decide which request receives hours.
Success check
Two facilitators could apply each criterion similarly.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Operationalise need, expected benefit, urgency or other authorised factors and state what evidence counts and its limits.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: One need fact is counted in two criteria.
Correction: Define each factor and check the same fact is not scored twice.
Stop / get help: Stop if any real person, scarce resource, urgent need or confidential data enters the exercise.
04
Set tie-break and uncertainty rule
Decide what happens to equal cases, missing data and low-confidence estimates without penalising access needs.
Why this step exists
Post-hoc tie-breaking lets case identity influence an ostensibly equal score.
Success check
The rule exists before any case identity is seen.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Decide what happens to equal cases, missing data and low-confidence estimates without penalising access needs.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Unreadable R7 information is scored as low need.
Correction: Use supported clarification or uncertainty/defer rule.
Stop / get help: Stop if any real person, scarce resource, urgent need or confidential data enters the exercise.
05
Declare conflicts and recusal
Each decision role notes relationships, incentives or interests and follows the facilitator’s reassignment route.
Why this step exists
Transparency requires action, not just disclosure.
Success check
No conflicted person scores the related case.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Each decision role notes relationships, incentives or interests and follows the facilitator’s reassignment route.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Each decision role notes relationships, incentives or interests and follows the facilitator’s reassignment route.” does not yet meet this declared check: No conflicted person scores the related case.
Correction: Return to the start of “Declare conflicts and recusal”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “No conflicted person scores the related case.”
Stop / get help: Stop if any real person, scarce resource, urgent need or confidential data enters the exercise.
06
Apply the rule to all cases
Score or classify every fictional case using the same evidence window and record a reason, including excluded and deferred cases.
Why this step exists
Consistency can be checked only with a complete trace.
Success check
Every decision has criteria-level reasons, not a bare total.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Score or classify every fictional case using the same evidence window and record a reason, including excluded and deferred cases.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Score or classify every fictional case using the same evidence window and record a reason, including excluded and deferred cases.” does not yet meet this declared check: Every decision has criteria-level reasons, not a bare total.
Correction: Return to the start of “Apply the rule to all cases”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “Every decision has criteria-level reasons, not a bare total.”
Stop / get help: Stop if any real person, scarce resource, urgent need or confidential data enters the exercise.
07
Inspect distribution and harm
Compare who receives, waits or is excluded; check access groups, burden, alternatives and potential adverse effects.
Why this step exists
A consistent rule can still distribute harm unfairly.
Success check
The facilitator sees the full distribution before finalising.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Compare who receives, waits or is excluded; check access groups, burden, alternatives and potential adverse effects.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Compare who receives, waits or is excluded; check access groups, burden, alternatives and potential adverse effects.” does not yet meet this declared check: The facilitator sees the full distribution before finalising.
Correction: Return to the start of “Inspect distribution and harm”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The facilitator sees the full distribution before finalising.”
Stop / get help: Stop if any real person, scarce resource, urgent need or confidential data enters the exercise.
08
Issue reasons and appeal
Provide a fictional notice with evidence used, reasons, correction route and independent review deadline.
Why this step exists
People need a usable challenge, not hidden mathematics.
Success check
The appeal can correct facts or process without retaliation.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Provide a fictional notice with evidence used, reasons, correction route and independent review deadline.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The appeal has no independent reviewer with remedy authority.
Correction: Name the distinct reviewer and what remedy they may order.
Stop / get help: Stop if any real person, scarce resource, urgent need or confidential data enters the exercise.
09
Process one appeal
Use a card correcting one material fact; the independent role reapplies the predeclared rule and records whether the outcome changes.
Why this step exists
Appeal tests correction rather than favour.
Success check
The original and reviewed decisions remain traceable.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Use a card correcting one material fact; the independent role reapplies the predeclared rule and records whether the outcome changes.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Use a card correcting one material fact; the independent role reapplies the predeclared rule and records whether the outcome changes.” does not yet meet this declared check: The original and reviewed decisions remain traceable.
Correction: Return to the start of “Process one appeal”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The original and reviewed decisions remain traceable.”
Stop / get help: Stop if any real person, scarce resource, urgent need or confidential data enters the exercise.
10
Review outcomes and revise prospectively
Compare intended purpose, actual distribution, unmet need and harms; revise only for future rounds under authority.
Why this step exists
Retroactive rule changes undermine consistency and trust.
Success check
Any change has a date, rationale and new approval.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Compare intended purpose, actual distribution, unmet need and harms; revise only for future rounds under authority.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Compare intended purpose, actual distribution, unmet need and harms; revise only for future rounds under authority.” does not yet meet this declared check: Any change has a date, rationale and new approval.
Correction: Return to the start of “Review outcomes and revise prospectively”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “Any change has a date, rationale and new approval.”
Stop / get help: Stop if any real person, scarce resource, urgent need or confidential data enters the exercise.
Correct versus incorrect execution
These accessible process diagrams are built from the tutorial’s own right/wrong teaching. They are not anatomical illustrations and do not add technique beyond the canonical tutorial.
Setting criteria — Vague criteria let personal preference enter the score unnoticed.
Correct / safer
Define barrier, benefit and alternative-support points before opening request cards.
Wrong / riskier
Use words like need and merit without definitions.
Handling missing data — Access barriers can be mistaken for lack of need.
Correct / safer
Offer supported clarification for unreadable R7 or defer it without a zero.
Wrong / riskier
Score missing information as low need.
Checking fairness — Aggregate efficiency can hide who bears harm.
Correct / safer
Inspect which scores, formats and access barriers shape the final six awards.
Wrong / riskier
Report only total benefit or utilisation.
Changing rules — Post-hoc changes destroy the declared process.
Correct / safer
Apply approved score changes prospectively, then preserve both allocation versions.
Wrong / riskier
Adjust a weight to include a favoured case.
Method-structure checklist
10 of 10 structural checks present
✓ Ordered, Power-specific instructions — present
✓ Every activity has a success check — present
✓ Materials or supplied records are declared — present
✓ Measurement or assessment rule is present — present
✓ Tutorial-specific troubleshooting is present — present
✓ Stopping or escalation boundary is present — present
✓ Every activity has an adjacent alternative — present
✓ Correct-versus-incorrect comparison is present — present
✓ Evidence context is bound to the Power record — present
✓ Planning metadata is present — present
The method-readiness band and presence checklist assess tutorial presentation and are separate from evidence quality for the underlying Power. They are automated editorial aids, not human approval.
Manual editorial sign-off: Pending. This tutorial must not display a human-approved state until an identified editor signs the exact content hash.