Illustrative self-check · private
A simplified version of the intervention-allocation decision, solved exactly in your browser. What you type stays on your machine. The engagement itself adds uncertainty, contractual exposure, deadlines and competing risks. This shows the core idea on your own cases.
Tools · remediation & intervention priority
Which cases to fix first when you cannot fix them all
Warranty claims, defects, remediation, service failures. More need attention than you can reach. Handling the worst-looking first is not the same as avoiding the most loss. Enter your cases and the capacity you have, and the tool finds the set that avoids the most.
| Case | Downstream loss if left € | Effort to fix (person-days) | Loss avoided / day | Priority |
|---|
Loss avoided, best set
€0
Loss avoided, worst-first
€0
Handling the biggest-loss cases first until capacity runs out.
Extra loss avoided
€0
What prioritising by loss-per-day gains over worst-first.
The plain finding
Method: exact selection (0/1 knapsack) maximising avoided loss subject to your capacity, compared with a worst-first (largest-loss) rule. The engagement itself estimates the downstream loss itself, adds contractual exposure, deadlines and uncertainty, and returns options. The wedge →
Start with the decision
Why worst-first is rarely best
The case that looks worst is not always the one where your scarce hours avoid the most loss, and the tool above just showed you the gap on your own numbers. The audit estimates that loss for every case, under your contracts and deadlines, at a fixed fee.
If you want the full answer
A calculator cannot see your contracts or your exposure. A partner can, in a short engagement priced before it begins, and will tell you if the ordering you run today is already close to right. Anything you share is confidential and unattributed.