Assign places and order the wait list
See this course’s project requirements
A fictional community-program roster with explicit eligibility rules, capacity and wait list decisions, accommodation requests, consent-status holds and a checked session handoff.
Keep your working files in your own notebook or software. Save a private description, checklist, and work link in My Proof.
What to include
- Create an eligibility/readiness matrix with unknown conditions visible; include the original-case decision evidence and a separate changed-case result.
- Build a confirmation/hold register with specific reasons; include the original-case decision evidence and a separate changed-case result.
- Record allocation rule and version for a reviewable decision; include the original-case decision evidence and a separate changed-case result.
- Create an access-action record without diagnostic data; include the original-case decision evidence and a separate changed-case result.
- Reconcile confirmed and reserved-for-offer capacity; include the original-case decision evidence and a separate changed-case result.
- Create checked roster and monitoring rule for new changes; include the original-case decision evidence and a separate changed-case result.
Review and revise
Use these criteria to check your work and choose what to improve.
- The final packet uses the supplied task-specific constraints and all six records agree.
- Every result can be traced to an identifier, input, calculation or stated decision rule.
- Changed-case practice updates dependent records and keeps holds or uncertainty visible.
- The packet states the learner role, authority boundary and specific next verification needed before real work.
Want more background?
The idea in everyday life
Original fictional workplace practice; paper or a local document is sufficient. The rules and records below are supplied for this exercise, not asserted universal workplace policy. Grove fictional rule: allocate place by completed-readiness timestamp then application ID for ties. Completed G3 at 09:00, G4 at 09:10, G1 at 09:20, G5 at 09:30, G6 at 09:40. Capacity 4; all meet age rule and required readiness now.
A capacity allocation uses one published rule with timestamp and evidence; changing the rule after seeing names undermines fairness.
Assign places and order the wait list — worked practice
A capacity allocation uses one published rule with timestamp and evidence; changing the rule after seeing names undermines fairness.
Grove fictional rule: allocate place by completed-readiness timestamp then application ID for ties. Completed G3 at 09:00, G4 at 09:10, G1 at 09:20, G5 at 09:30, G6 at 09:40. Capacity 4; all meet age rule and required readiness now. Use paper or a local document. Preserve the original case and make a separate changed-case record.
1. Step 1
Sort completed applicants using the stated two-part key.
You should see: G3, G4, G1, G5, G6.
Keep the stated identifier, unit and policy alongside this result so another reader can check it.
2. Step 2
Assign only the first four places.
You should see: G3/G4/G1/G5 confirmed.
Keep the stated identifier, unit and policy alongside this result so another reader can check it.
3. Step 3
Retain the next candidate as await list record.
You should see: G6 wait list position 1.
Keep the stated identifier, unit and policy alongside this result so another reader can check it.
4. Step 4
Record allocation rule and version for a reviewable decision.
You should see: A four-person Grove confirmed roster plus G6 first wait list with readiness-time ordering.
Keep the stated identifier, unit and policy alongside this result so another reader can check it.
What to finish
Record allocation rule and version for a reviewable decision; include the original-case decision evidence and a separate changed-case result.
Watch for this
Inventing a newtie-break after seeing who the candidates are.
How can I tell I understand it?
Using the supplied identifiers, I can record allocation rule and version for a reviewable decision. My changed-case record names the revised condition and explains which dependent decision it changes.
Quick knowledge check
Answer all 3 questions. Get at least 2 right and the lesson completes automatically.
You’ll get an explanation for each answer. Signed in? Your results save to your account.
Pass the check. We’ll save the progress.
Answer all 3 questions above and get at least 2 right. You can review the explanations and try again.
Go to the knowledge checkTools, templates, and lesson sources
Tools and templates
Tools open in a new tab so you can keep your place here.
Sources and further reading
Explore the references behind this lesson.
Source & access notes · checked 2026-10-01
Occupational task and responsibility context; the exercise policies and quantities are original fictional inputs. Page title and relevant content inspected; no interactive controls or credential process tested.
Access: Readable official page retrieved with the web reader on 2026-10-01.
Reuse: All teaching cases, data, worked steps and questions are original. Link and limited paraphrase for context; no copied source exercises.
Source & access notes · checked 2026-10-01
Occupational task and responsibility context; the exercise policies and quantities are original fictional inputs. Page title and relevant content inspected; no interactive controls or credential process tested.
Access: Readable official page retrieved with the web reader on 2026-10-01.
Reuse: All teaching cases, data, worked steps and questions are original. Link and limited paraphrase for context; no copied source exercises.
Report a problem with this lesson
Tell us what went wrong. Please leave out personal information and private project contents.