P_00003 — Price and delivery date are committed without confirming the producing asset

One testable operational mismatch: the commercial commitment is computed from a general rule set while the capacity that has to honour it lives in a separate schedule.

Problem ID	Name	Solution IDs	Statement type	Status
P_00003	Price and delivery date are committed without confirming the producing asset	S_00003	market_hypothesis	draft

kind: problem_catalog
schema_version: 1
problems:
  - id: P_00003
    solutionsIds:
      - S_00003
    priority: 55
    name: 'Price and delivery date are committed without confirming the producing asset'
    status: approved
    statement_type: market_hypothesis
    applies_to_icp_ids: []
    situation: >-
      A company quotes work that can run on more than one production asset, where
      the assets differ in output rate and in what they run well, and the
      available capacity is held in a schedule separate from the quoting process.
    operational_mismatch: >-
      The quoted price and the promised date are derived from product rules such
      as size, weight, and volume, while the availability and output rate of the
      specific asset that will run the work sit in the production schedule. The
      commitment is therefore made against a general assumption rather than
      against the asset, so neither the date nor the assumed margin is verified at
      the moment the customer is given it.
    possible_consequences:
      - >-
        A promised date is met only by displacing other scheduled work, moving the
        cost onto a different order.
      - >-
        Work is placed on a slower asset than the price assumed, so the realised
        rate is below the quoted one.
      - >-
        Changeovers the price did not account for are added in order to honour the
        sequence.
      - >-
        The gap between quoted and realised margin is not visible until after the
        work has run, when it can no longer be priced differently.
    observable_signals:
      - >-
        A suggested-price rule set exists and the company states it does not read
        asset availability.
      - 'Scheduling is described as manual slotting, sequencing, or fitting work in.'
      - >-
        A lead time is quoted from a look at the schedule rather than from a
        reservation against it.
      - 'Certain assets are described as running certain work better, faster, or cheaper.'
      - 'Changeover reduction is described as a scheduling goal pursued by hand.'
    disconfirming_signals:
      - 'Quoting reads asset availability and output rate at the time the quote is made.'
      - >-
        Quoted margin and realised margin are compared per order as a routine
        practice.
      - >-
        All assets are interchangeable in rate and capability, so which one runs
        the work does not change the cost.
      - >-
        Capacity is not the binding constraint, because the company quotes lead
        times long enough to absorb any sequence.
    confirmation_questions: []
    evidence_requirement: >-
      One quote where the promised date or the assumed output rate did not match
      the asset the work actually ran on, and what the company did about it.
    evidence_ids: []
    prohibited_claims:
      - 'Any quantified improvement in win rate, margin, on-time delivery, or changeover count.'
      - 'That the company is currently delivering late or losing work on price.'
      - 'That scheduling can be fully automated, or that human sequencing judgement is removed.'
      - >-
        That the account''s quoting ignores capacity. Until the account confirms
        it, this is the hypothesis under test.