Reading four quarters of a gap as it widens
Here is four quarters of one organization, and your job is to say what was happening and what you would have funded.
Four quarters of one organization. Read it before the commentary and answer two things: what was happening, and what you would have funded at the end of the second quarter.
Constructed for this volume. The numbers describe nothing real and are here to be reasoned about, not cited.
The reading
| what you can say | and what follows |
|---|---|
| the examining capacity never moved | which it could not: the same people had the same hours. This is the pinned quantity |
| the ratio roughly doubled | so by the fourth quarter most of what shipped had not been looked at by anybody who could have caught a problem |
| everything reported upward improved | correctly, every quarter. Nobody misled anybody |
| the incident could not be attributed | which is the signature from step six, and is what the accumulation looks like when it surfaces |
What this volume would have funded, and where it could be wrong
At the end of the second quarter, with the ratio already visibly moving: structure the highest-volume output so it can be checked rather than read — the second row of step ten. That is engineering work with a clear payback and it does not need anybody's permission beyond yours.
Not more reviewers. The sum from step seven says the capacity needed had roughly doubled over the period, the people who could do it were the four already doing it, and nothing would have shown whether adding a fifth helped.
Two places this reading could be wrong, stated because a volume that publishes only its confident conclusion is not worth marking against. The examined count may have been flat because examining got faster rather than because capacity was pinned — that would be good news and the exhibit cannot distinguish it. And a single incident is not a pattern; reading the fourth quarter's incident as the bill for the first three is the most likely error on this page.