Input
Obtain the exact narrative and budget versions, line locators, rate/quantity bases, confirmed funding and actual decision route. A contradiction is not repaired by silently editing one number. Produce a decision note with updated locators and the original discrepancy preserved.
Steps
- Quote both locators and their explicit units, frequencies and durations.
- Reconstruct each calculation using supplied factors only.
- Identify the missing conversion assumption between delivery units and cost units.
- Calculate materially different alternatives, retaining unknown feasibility or costs.
- Obtain the authorized program decision with finance review and any separately required funder consent.
- Record the chosen basis, reason, authority evidence and unresolved conditions.
- Update both narrative and budget versions, cross-referencing the decision and verifying their agreement.
Fictional Worked Case
Narrative 3.2 promises visits to six villages twice monthly for five months:6 x 2 x 5 =60 visits. Budget T-2 has 30 vehicle days at 90 USD, with note '6 villages x 5 months'; fee 2,700. T-3 uses 30 days x 40 liters x 1.50 USD =1,800. Total budget and confirmed funding are 12,500 USD. Visits per vehicle day is NOT STATED. All figures are invented.
| Alternative | Cost consequence | Decision/evidence needed |
|---|---|---|
| A: keep 60 visits, assume one/day | 60 days x 90 =5,400, up 2,700; fuel 60 x 40 =2,400 liters x 1.50 =3,600, up 1,800. Total rises 4,500 to 17,000; funding gap 4,500. | Confirm one/day and fuel assumptions, delivery feasibility, funding and actual change authority. |
| B: revise narrative to monthly | 6 x 1 x 5 =30 visits; existing 12,500 budget unchanged under supplied cost basis. | Authorized scope/service-commitment decision needed; fewer visits is not a clerical correction. |
| C: two visits/day for 60 visits | 60 /2 =30 vehicle days; nominal day-fee line remains 2,700. Fuel and total feasibility UNKNOWN until routes/distances are verified. | Evidence must support two villages/day and actual fuel need; do not declare costs unchanged. |
The options expose different delivery promises, not just different totals. OptionA's extra 4,500 is 2,700 +1,800;12,500 +4,500 =17,000. OptionB avoids that modeled increase only by changing the proposed frequency. OptionC cannot be selected solely because its arithmetic fits the old vehicle-day count.
Output: Decision Note
Record original Narrative 3.2/T-2/T-3 references, the 60-visits versus 30-days question, three options, evidence gaps, decision owner and actual decision source. The authorized program director chooses with finance review; the case supplies no final choice. Keep status PENDING rather than inventing a decision or reason.
After an actual decision, update the narrative's frequency/unit statements and the budget's quantity/rate/fuel assumptions together, retaining new version/line locators. Verify that both express the selected authorized basis; changing the grand total alone is insufficient.
Exceptions and Human Boundary
If route evidence is absent, leave OptionC's feasibility and fuel UNKNOWN. If a total or scope change needs funder consent under the actual award, obtain that separate decision; no universal threshold or permission is supplied here. The preparer calculates and drafts; people with actual authority decide.
Use the budget narrative worksheet for the resulting cost explanations, rather than treating it as the decision itself.
Source Scope
CC 8 (November 27, 2024), decision guidance (November 2, 2020) and CC 26 (September 16, 2026) inform expenditure authority, recorded options and assumptions in England and Wales. NCVO allocation and full-cost-recovery guidance (both reviewed December 1, 2022,UK) inform transparent workings and explicit funding gaps. The two-locator procedure, options and case are original OpenAid practice; no funder rule or actual transport estimate is inferred. Checked November 1, 2026.