# PWR-237 — Resource allocation: learner worksheet Release: Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition Estimated time: Estimated 11 min reading; practical time is provider-set Difficulty: Intermediate Equipment: Common household or practice equipment — 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. Space: Desk / seated Automated structural checklist: 10 of 10 structural checks present Evidence quality/context: G4; Focused research depth Automated method-quality band: Comprehensive Method-rating basis: Structure coverage, instruction/check specificity, alternative distinctness, source troubleshooting, comparison depth and whether purpose/check fields are authored rather than derived. Editorial review: Pending manual editorial sign off ## Before you begin - [ ] I read the tutorial authority and stop conditions. - [ ] I have the required equipment/space or a declared accessible alternative. ## Canonical source context 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. Target outcome: 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. ### Authority and setup conditions - 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. ### Required or supplied materials - 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. ## 1. 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. Success check: The exact fictional quantity and decision owner are clear. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “The exact fictional quantity and decision owner are clear.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 2. Identify affected access List who may benefit or be excluded, application barriers, support needs and missing perspectives. Why: Equal rules can produce unequal access. Success check: The exercise records access conditions before ranking cases. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “The exercise records access conditions before ranking cases.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 3. 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. Success check: Two facilitators could apply each criterion similarly. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “Two facilitators could apply each criterion similarly.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 4. 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. Success check: The rule exists before any case identity is seen. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “The rule exists before any case identity is seen.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 5. 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. Success check: No conflicted person scores the related case. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “No conflicted person scores the related case.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 6. 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. Success check: Every decision has criteria-level reasons, not a bare total. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “Every decision has criteria-level reasons, not a bare total.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 7. 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. Success check: The facilitator sees the full distribution before finalising. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “The facilitator sees the full distribution before finalising.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 8. 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. Success check: The appeal can correct facts or process without retaliation. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “The appeal can correct facts or process without retaliation.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 9. 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. Success check: The original and reviewed decisions remain traceable. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “The original and reviewed decisions remain traceable.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 10. 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. Success check: Any change has a date, rationale and new approval. Accessible alternative: Ask the qualified provider to adapt positioning, cue modality, pace, interface or rest while preserving this step’s declared check: “Any change has a date, rationale and new approval.” If an adaptation changes the measured task or configuration, record it as a different configuration rather than an equivalent attempt. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## Reflection What changed? ________________________________________________________________________________ What remains difficult? ________________________________________________________________________________ What will I repeat, adapt, ask for help with, or stop? ________________________________________________________________________________ --- Completion of this worksheet demonstrates tutorial participation only. It does not establish capability, qualification, safety clearance, diagnosis, treatment or independent validation.