15-Session Programme · 25 Minutes Per Day · Free · For leaders in Nigeria’s gas and industrial energy businesses
WEEK 2 OF 3 · SUPPLY, LNG, INDUSTRIAL ENERGY, CNG AND LPG · SESSIONS 6–10 · WORK AT YOUR OWN PACE
Chapters 6 and 7 · Processing and SupplySESSION 6
Pipeline Nominations and Delivery
Why This Matters
A nomination is where the customer promise meets the network on a particular day, and a balance is where the company later proves what happened. Both are easy to blur. A forecast gets treated as a feasible plan, a profitable allocation gets treated as a deliverable one, and an unexplained residual gets called a loss. Today you separate the request from what the system can support and from what management chooses to allocate, and you draw a boundary around the quantity so a residual becomes an investigation, not a verdict. If your business does not move gas by pipeline, apply this to the nearest equivalent allocation and balance in your own operation.
25-Minute Module
0:00 – 5:00
Three stages that must stay distinct
- A nomination connects quantity, location and time within a physical and contractual system. Three different questions sit inside it. Demand forecasting estimates the request. An accepted engineering assessment tests whether the delivery pattern can be supported. Allocation compares feasible patterns under approved commercial priorities.
- The stages remain distinct even where one platform performs them, and each needs different evidence.
- THE DOCTRINE
A profitable allocation is unusable if it cannot meet receiving conditions.
- The U.S. EIA describes natural gas moving through connected gathering, transmission and distribution systems, with compression supporting transport (U.S. EIA, Natural Gas Explained: Delivery and Storage). The book treats this as a general description, not a Nigerian facility design basis; the network model must reflect current configuration, equipment, gas properties and permitted operation.
- Linepack, where included in the accepted engineering model, concerns gas held within the network and its changing operating state. It is not freely available stock merely because the estimate is positive.
When a plan arrives, ask which of the three stages produced each number on it.
5:00 – 10:00
Make the objective explicit and return infeasibility honestly
- An optimiser chooses the best plan against an objective, so ask which one management has actually chosen: minimising accepted shortfall, maximising contribution, preserving a contractual priority or another approved objective.
- Separate hard constraints (equipment and permission conditions, in the feasibility check) from economic preferences. Commercial priorities need their accepted contractual treatment; as Session 3 established, the signed clause governs.
- THE DOCTRINE
A solver should not silently trade a necessary technical condition for higher margin. A penalty term chosen by an analyst should not turn an obligation into something the business can ignore whenever another sale looks attractive.
- Where no allocation satisfies the accepted conditions, the system should show the conflict and possible authorised revisions. A request to change a customer window is a proposed business action, not proof the plan became feasible.
If a plan never shows a conflict, ask where the conflict went.
10:00 – 16:00
A worked allocation with competing commitments
- The book's fictional one-day case, in assumed standard-volume units. Supply of 100,000 is assumed technically deliverable; engineering confirmation is a prerequisite, not a conclusion of the arithmetic.
Customer Request Assumed minimum ₦ per unit Allocated Contribution A 50,000 40,000 120 50,000 ₦6 million B 40,000 30,000 100 40,000 ₦4 million C 30,000 0 80 10,000 ₦800,000 - Minimums first (70,000), then 10,000 each under an approved contribution objective: ₦10.8 million. Change one fact. If A can receive only 45,000, the allocation is physically invalid. If supply falls to 60,000, the 70,000 of minimums cannot all be met: 40,000 to A and 20,000 to B has selected a 10,000-unit shortfall against B. It has not eliminated the conflict.
- IN THE PHYSICAL SUPPLY · THE WORKED CASE
- Physical supply. In a fictional pipeline operator, engineering confirms whether 100,000 units can reach each point at required conditions. That confirmation is an input to the allocation, never an output of it.
AT THE CUSTOMER PROMISE · THE PARALLEL- Customer promise. The commercial owner sees which minimum is breached at 60,000 and who can negotiate a revision. The no-change case stays in the pack, so management approves a legitimate alternative, not an unexplained algorithmic preference.
- Evaluate plans on historical nomination snapshots, not final delivered totals. Aggregate error can conceal a serious shortfall at one location, so evaluate constrained receiving points separately.
Ask the planner to show you the 60,000 case before you admire the 100,000 one.
16:00 – 21:00
The balance boundary and a residual that is not a verdict
- Choose the boundary, period and quantity basis before entering figures. Do not add quantities with different reference conditions, calorific bases or states of acceptance.
Appendix B item (assumed Sm3) Quantity Record needed Opening inventory 10,000 Accepted opening record Receipts 50,000 Meter or transaction references Deliveries 45,000 Accepted delivery records Own use 2,000 Approved measurement or estimation basis Other accounted outflows 500 Separate disposition Expected closing 12,500 Opening plus receipts less outflows Observed closing 12,000 Closing measurement and acceptance Residual 500 Expected less observed - Make the sign convention explicit: here a positive residual means observed closing is below calculated. The 500 is an investigation item. It does not identify theft, leakage, measurement error or a commercial adjustment. Keep a second record for evidence status: which inputs are measured, calculated, estimated, provisional or disputed, and who accepted them.
- THE DOCTRINE
A residual within a calculated uncertainty range still needs the agreed reconciliation treatment. A residual outside it needs investigation, not an automatically assigned cause.
- In the book's separate simplified comparison, two independent quantities with standard uncertainties of 1,000 and 500 units and unit sensitivity coefficients give a combined standard uncertainty of their difference of about 1,118 units, the square root of 1,000 squared plus 500 squared (JCGM 100:2008, section 5). Correlated inputs need covariance treatment. It is not a complete assessment of the balance above; metrology sets the assessment and decision rule, not an analyst's universal percentage.
Ask what sign the residual carries before anyone tells you what it means.
21:00 – 25:00
Preserve the record, and your wrap
- Deliveries under restriction may understate requests. Preserve unfulfilled, revised and cancelled demand where records support it, or a forecast trained on delivered quantity can normalise shortage.
- Investigate cut-offs, comparable conditions, duplication, omitted own use and manual adjustments first. An instrument concern goes to metrology review; a physical concern to the operating investigation. A predicted adjustment never overwrites the accepted ledger; an unresolved residual stays unresolved with an accountable next action.
- Adopt a versioned nomination review that keeps each revision and classifies deviations by forecast, supply, customer change, execution and measurement; and reproduce one accepted close through an independent reviewer.
- Before you close: write the request, feasibility and allocation stages of your Session 1 decision, the objective, and its balance boundary. That is Section 6 of your 90-Day AI Leadership Plan. Write your assignment now.
Claim recovered product only when its physical mechanism and economic outcome are established.
Key Terms
Request, feasibility and allocation
Three distinct stages: the forecast of what customers ask for, the engineering test of what the system can support, and the commercial choice among feasible patterns.
Hard constraint
An equipment, permission or technical condition that belongs in the feasibility check and may not be traded for margin by an optimiser.
Linepack
Gas held within the network in its changing operating state. Where it is in the accepted engineering model, it is not freely available stock merely because the estimate is positive.
Residual (balance)
Expected less observed closing quantity on a stated boundary, basis and sign convention. An investigation item, not proof of theft, leakage, loss or recoverable product.
Self-Check — Before You Submit
1. In the book's worked allocation, supply falls to 60,000 against assumed minimums of 40,000 (A) and 30,000 (B). The tool proposes 40,000 to A and 20,000 to B. How should the pack describe this?
- A. As a feasible plan that resolves the conflict
- B. As a selected 10,000-unit shortfall against B's minimum that needs an authorised decision
- C. As proof that B's contract is unenforceable
- D. As an optimisation error to be retrained
B. As a selected 10,000-unit shortfall against B's minimum that needs an authorised decision — The minimums total 70,000, so 60,000 cannot meet them; the allocation selected a shortfall. Calling it feasible is the tempting error: it hides the decision management must own.
2. A fictional balance shows a 500-unit positive residual. The site manager proposes reporting it as theft. What should you do?
- A. Approve the theft report, because the residual is positive
- B. Write the residual off as an accepted adjustment
- C. Treat it as an investigation item: check cut-offs, conditions, duplication and own use, and route instrument concerns to metrology
- D. Let the anomaly model correct the closing inventory
C. Treat it as an investigation item: check cut-offs, conditions, duplication and own use, and route instrument concerns to metrology — A residual does not identify theft, leakage or a commercial adjustment. Writing it off is the other trap: the ledger looks reconciled while the evidence disappears.
3. Two independent quantities have standard uncertainties of 1,000 and 500 units with unit sensitivity coefficients. What does the book's JCGM 100:2008 illustration give for the combined standard uncertainty of their difference?
- A. About 1,118 units
- B. 1,500 units
- C. 500 units
- D. A universal percentage set by the analyst
A. About 1,118 units — The square root of 1,000 squared plus 500 squared is about 1,118. Adding them to 1,500 is the tempting mistake for independent inputs.
Today’s Assignment
Write Section 6 of your plan: request, feasibility and allocation separated for your Session 1 decision, the objective made explicit and the balance boundary defined.
- Separate the three stages in your decision: who forecasts the request, who performs the accepted feasibility check and who allocates, with the evidence each needs at the cut-off.
- State the optimisation objective your company has actually chosen, which conditions are hard constraints, and how an infeasible case would be shown and escalated.
- Define the balance boundary, period, quantity basis and sign convention relevant to the decision, using the Appendix B template, with an evidence-status record for each input.
- State how a residual would be investigated without manufacturing certainty: the checks, who reviews instrument concerns, who reviews physical concerns and who may authorise a correction.
- The honest part: where your business lets delivered quantity stand in for demand, or closes a residual by adjustment. Without pipelines, use your nearest equivalent allocation and balance. If no AI is in use yet, that is normal. Aim for 400 to 900 words.
YOUR 90-DAY PLAN
Section 6 — Request, feasibility and allocation separated, the objective explicit and the balance boundary defined.
How this is marked — the rubric
| Separates request, feasibility and allocation with named owners by role and the evidence each needs | 25 |
| States the objective actually chosen, the hard constraints and how infeasibility is shown | 25 |
| Defines boundary, period, quantity basis, sign convention and evidence status | 25 |
| Describes a residual investigation that assigns no cause in advance, with an honest example | 25 |
| Total · pass mark 70 | 100 |
Submitting session 6
Write your answer in Word or Google Docs. The first line must read
Write your answer in Word or Google Docs. The first line must read
Session: 6, or the submission is refused. Upload the Word file (.docx), or switch to the Google Doc tab and paste your document’s share link.Marked against the rubric above and returned as a written letter, saved to your progress page. Do not submit until you have passed the self-check above.Capabilities Covered
Nomination disciplineExplicit optimisation objectivesHonest infeasibilityBalance boundariesResidual investigation
Chapters 8 and 9 · LNG and Industrial EnergySESSION 7
LNG Operating Decisions and Interfaces
Why This Matters
A delivery can fail without any single department failing. Every team reports progress while the combined promise breaks at an interface: a transfer arrives late, a receiving facility is unavailable, a customer's plant cannot use the gas delivered. Today you map where custody, operational control and commercial responsibility change hands in your decision, define the service the customer can actually use, and keep the supplier's value and the customer's value in separate columns. If your company does not handle LNG, apply the LNG chapter to the nearest transfer interface you depend on. If you are an industrial energy user, read the customer chapter from your own side of the same service.
25-Minute Module
0:00 – 5:00
Which business, and which interfaces?
- An export liquefaction facility, a small-scale distributor and an industrial receiving installation share a product but have different infrastructure and decision horizons. Define the business boundary before selecting the model.
- The U.S. Department of Energy describes LNG as natural gas cooled to a liquid state for transport and storage, with regasification at receiving facilities where required, and distinguishes large-scale shipping from smaller-scale movements (U.S. Department of Energy, Liquefied Natural Gas, official overview). The book is explicit that this does not establish operating limits or permission for a Nigerian installation.
- Map feed acceptance, liquefaction, storage, loading, transport, unloading, regasification and customer acceptance as separate interfaces, and identify where custody, operational control and commercial responsibility change.
- THE DOCTRINE
A company may own only some stages while remaining exposed to delays or restrictions at the others.
Ask who controls each dependency, not who reports on it.
5:00 – 10:00
Inventory is a conditioned quantity
- Total reported stock may differ from stock available for a proposed movement: record basis, condition, storage, planned transfers, equipment readiness and time windows.
- THE DOCTRINE
A forecast of storage pressure or vapour generation is advisory evidence. The permitted management of boil-off gas and pressure belongs to the engineered system and approved arrangements.
- The book's delayed-transfer advisory combines an arrival forecast, inventory scenarios and a constrained schedule comparison. A language-model summary can explain alternatives but should not create the engineering feasibility conclusion, and stale inventory or equipment status returns an unavailable result.
- An arrival interval described as 80% coverage should be examined against later accepted outcomes at the relevant horizon. Evaluate the inventory model separately: a good arrival prediction does not compensate for an unreliable inventory basis.
When someone quotes the stock figure, ask how much of it the next movement can actually use.
10:00 – 15:00
Recovery or rescheduling: count the contribution once
- The book's fictional case uses teaching assumptions, not a transport quotation or documented result: a one-day delay threatens 100 tonnes at supplier contribution of ₦60,000 per tonne.
Assumed case Calculation Result Maximum exposure if permanently lost 100 t × ₦60,000 ₦6 million Alternative movement recovers 70 t 70 t × ₦60,000 ₦4.2 million protected Less cost of the alternative movement ₦4.2 million − ₦2.5 million ₦1.7 million simplified net All 100 t can be rescheduled without loss No permanently lost sale Lost-sales case cannot justify it Receiving facility unavailable 70 t recovery infeasible No positive benefit retained - If all 100 tonnes can be rescheduled, any value lies in an accepted delay charge or other approved consequence. Do not count the contribution as lost and then count the rescheduled sale again.
- To review an interface that failed, reconstruct the delay with the evidence available at each decision time and distinguish an information delay from a physical-capability constraint. If every alternative needs unavailable infrastructure, an advisory may still improve visibility, funded for that narrower purpose.
A recovery that cannot complete has no benefit, however cheap the transport.
15:00 – 20:00
A usable service, and whose value is being protected
- An industrial customer may use gas for heat, power, drying or another process; quantity alone does not establish service. Define the service jointly: delivery point, quantity basis, windows, receiving restrictions, cut-offs and contingency, recording which conditions belong to supplier and customer.
- THE DOCTRINE
A supplier forecast should not infer safe customer-equipment operation.
- Forecast the request, not the constraint: separate low deliveries caused by low demand from those caused by supplier shortage, credit restriction or unavailable receiving capability. Commitments pass through the actual commercial authority.
- IN THE PHYSICAL SUPPLY · THE WORKED CASE
- Physical supply. In the book's assumed case an intervention protects 10,000 accepted standard cubic metres at supplier contribution of ₦150 per unit: ₦1.5 million protected, less ₦600,000 incremental cost, ₦900,000 simplified supplier net value. If it merely advances a delivery that could have been accepted the next day, permanently protected contribution may be zero.
AT THE CUSTOMER PROMISE · THE PARALLEL- Customer promise. The customer separately estimates that continuity protects ₦8 million of its production contribution. That explains the service's importance but is not ₦8 million of supplier profit. An agreed incremental fee would enter the supplier calculation with its costs and acceptance conditions; a retention claim needs evidence and is not cash realised by one event.
- For repeated underprediction, the best fix may be an information-sharing arrangement rather than another model.
If management approves a response for relationship reasons, write that down. Inflating the money makes the next evaluation less useful.
20:00 – 25:00
The customer delivery review, and your wrap
- Appendix C traces one customer period through linked events, in illustrative generic units: 10,000 requested and planned, 9,000 released and physically received, 8,500 commercially accepted and billed, payment partly outstanding. The 500-unit discrepancy between receipt and acceptance needs resolution; the credit owner agrees collection action.
- Do not infer that the 1,500 units of unaccepted request are a permanent loss of revenue. Establish whether the quantity was deferred, cancelled, substituted or supplied later. A payment delay creates exposure and funding consequences without automatically becoming a bad debt.
- THE DOCTRINE
An AI-generated summary can organise the evidence; it should not settle a disputed contractual interpretation.
- For every exception record the customer impact, supplier impact, evidence owner and decision deadline, and report service, margin, funding and collection separately. A missing confirmation remains unresolved. The aim is a commitment both parties can explain.
- Before you close: list the interfaces in your Session 1 decision and whose value it protects. That is Section 7 of your 90-Day AI Leadership Plan. Write your assignment now.
Close the review only when the accepted result and the remaining obligations are both clear.
Key Terms
Interface
A point in the chain where custody, operational control or commercial responsibility changes; the place to look when a combined promise fails.
Conditioned quantity
Inventory stated with its basis, condition, storage, equipment readiness and time window, so that stock available for a movement is not confused with total reported stock.
Usable service
Gas the customer can use: agreed delivery point, product and quantity basis, windows, receiving restrictions, cut-offs and contingency, with each condition's owner named.
Customer delivery review
The Appendix C trace from contracted request through allocation, release, receipt, acceptance, invoice and collection, locating the unresolved interface and its next action.
Self-Check — Before You Submit
1. In the book's LNG example, all 100 delayed tonnes can be rescheduled without losing contribution. A manager still claims ₦4.2 million protected by the ₦2.5 million alternative movement. What is wrong?
- A. Nothing; protected contribution is always the recovered tonnes times contribution
- B. The contribution would be counted as lost and then counted again when the rescheduled sale happens
- C. The figure should be ₦6 million
- D. The alternative movement cost should be ignored
B. The contribution would be counted as lost and then counted again when the rescheduled sale happens — If the sale is only rescheduled, no contribution is permanently lost, so the lost-sales case cannot justify the movement. ₦6 million is the tempting error: it applies only to a permanent loss.
2. A supplier's continuity intervention protects ₦900,000 of simplified supplier net value; the customer says continuity protected ₦8 million of its production contribution. What goes in the supplier's financial case?
- A. ₦8.9 million
- B. ₦8 million
- C. ₦900,000, with the customer's ₦8 million kept as a separate consequence unless an agreed fee brings part of it into the supplier calculation
- D. Nothing, because customer value is irrelevant
C. ₦900,000, with the customer's ₦8 million kept as a separate consequence unless an agreed fee brings part of it into the supplier calculation — The customer's number explains why the service matters but is not supplier profit. Adding the two is the tempting error; dismissing customer value is also wrong.
3. An Appendix C review shows 10,000 units requested and 8,500 commercially accepted. The commercial director wants to record 1,500 units of lost revenue. What should the review do first?
- A. Determine whether the quantity was deferred, cancelled, substituted or supplied later
- B. Record the loss, since the request was contracted
- C. Ask an AI assistant to decide which party breached the contract
- D. Write the outstanding payment off as bad debt
A. Determine whether the quantity was deferred, cancelled, substituted or supplied later — Unaccepted request is not automatically lost revenue. Asking an AI assistant to settle responsibility is the attractive shortcut, but a generated summary should not settle a disputed contractual interpretation.
Today’s Assignment
Write Section 7 of your plan: the interfaces in your Session 1 decision, the usable service defined jointly and whose value is being protected.
- Map the interfaces in your decision and, at each, state where custody, operational control and commercial responsibility change, naming the controlling party by role.
- Define the usable service with the counterpart: delivery point, quantity basis, windows, receiving restrictions, cut-offs and contingency, and which conditions belong to your company and which to them.
- State whose value the decision protects, keeping supplier and customer consequences in separate columns and showing any part that is rescheduled rather than lost.
- Complete an Appendix C review for one customer or counterpart in your business, from request to collection, with each exception's impact, evidence owner and deadline.
- The honest part: where your company has counted a customer's loss as its own benefit, or a rescheduled sale twice. If you are an industrial energy user, write from your side of the same service. If no AI is in use yet, that is normal; work from the decision in front of you. Aim for 400 to 900 words.
YOUR 90-DAY PLAN
Section 7 — The interfaces, the usable service defined jointly and whose value is being protected.
How this is marked — the rubric
| Maps the interfaces with custody, operational control and commercial responsibility named at each | 25 |
| Defines the usable service jointly, assigning each condition to its owner | 25 |
| Keeps supplier and customer value separate and counts no contribution twice | 25 |
| Completes an Appendix C review with exceptions, owners and deadlines, and an honest example | 25 |
| Total · pass mark 70 | 100 |
Submitting session 7
Write your answer in Word or Google Docs. The first line must read
Write your answer in Word or Google Docs. The first line must read
Session: 7, or the submission is refused. Upload the Word file (.docx), or switch to the Google Doc tab and paste your document’s share link.Marked against the rubric above and returned as a written letter, saved to your progress page. Do not submit until you have passed the self-check above.Capabilities Covered
Interface mappingConditioned inventoryJoint service definitionSeparating supplier and customer valueCustomer delivery review
Chapter 10 · LNG and Industrial EnergySESSION 8
Utilities, Energy Use and Operating Losses
Why This Matters
Energy and loss claims make it easy to take credit that has not been earned. A lower electricity bill arrives in a month when throughput also fell. A flare report improves and somebody calls it recovered gas. Today you learn to define the operating result a saving is measured against, build a baseline that explains the difference, and reconstruct one claim until you can say which part an analytical capability actually caused. Choose an energy, utility, loss or flaring claim that bears on your Session 1 decision, or one your company has already made. A smaller, defensible number protects capital for applications that genuinely change your economics.
25-Minute Module
0:00 – 5:00
A comparable operating result
- An energy application should reduce resources or cost for an accepted operating output. A lower electricity bill caused by lower throughput does not establish efficiency. An improved energy-per-unit ratio can mislead if product mix, quality or operating conditions changed.
- Define the energy boundary and the useful output together. Identify the electricity, fuel, steam, cooling or compressed-air inputs relevant to the application, and preserve feed, load, hours, configuration and product mix for the comparison.
- THE DOCTRINE
Do not attach a saving claim to a consumption variable while ignoring the service it supports.
- Think of it as the gas equivalent of comparing a compressor's fuel use on a full-load day with a half-load day: the lower figure says nothing about efficiency until the output is the same.
Before you look at the saving, ask what the plant produced in both periods.
5:00 – 10:00
A baseline that explains the difference
- A baseline is the defined comparison against which a saving is measured. A simple one may relate energy consumption to throughput and operating hours within a stable regime; more complex conditions may need a different model. State the variables, validation boundary and missing regimes.
- THE DOCTRINE
A baseline is a defined comparison, not a number selected because it makes the result attractive.
- Keep simultaneous changes visible. Equipment repair, operating practice, production mix and tariff can all change observed expenditure. A before-and-after difference during a maintenance month is not sufficient evidence of an AI effect.
- An anomaly model can identify departures from expected consumption, but the departure is not automatically avoidable waste. A competent owner investigates the mechanism: measurement, legitimate process demand, changed operation or equipment condition.
List everything else that changed that month. If the list is long, the attribution is short.
10:00 – 16:00
Constrained optimisation and the savings sensitivity
- The optimiser compares accepted alternatives within technical, quality and delivery conditions. It should not change pressure, temperature or another operating condition because a model predicts lower energy use; technical owners establish permissible choices. Include transition costs: a sequence may lower steady-state energy while increasing starts, delivery variability or review effort. If an advisory is valid only under steady operation, it returns a limitation during start-up rather than extrapolating silently.
- The book's worked sensitivity uses assumptions, not market prices or documented outcomes.
Assumed case Gross monthly saving Net of ₦600,000 recurring cost Payback on ₦10 million Baseline: 120,000 kWh at ₦220 per kWh = ₦26.4 million 8% comparable reduction ₦2.112 million ₦1.512 million About 6.61 months 3% verified reduction ₦792,000 ₦192,000 About 52.08 months - The verified figure, not the assumed one, decides the case: payback moves from under seven months to over four years. And if 8% lower consumption accompanies 8% lower accepted output, the calculation does not establish an efficiency gain at all. If the rate changes, separate the quantity effect from the price effect. Credit the application only with the mechanism it actually changed.
Ask for the payback at the verified reduction before you approve the one at the assumed reduction.
16:00 – 21:00
Flaring, methane and recovered gas are different claims
- The World Bank's Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 initiative distinguishes routine flaring from safety and other non-routine flaring (World Bank, Zero Routine Flaring by 2030). The book treats it as a commitment framework, not proof of an individual facility's outcome. Preserve accepted physical events and their classifications.
- A lower estimated flare quantity does not automatically establish reduced methane emissions, recovered saleable gas or collected revenue. Each claim needs its own measurement basis and physical mechanism.
- IN THE PHYSICAL SUPPLY · THE WORKED CASE
- Physical supply. A fictional processing plant's advisory helps link a constrained asset to a feasible response. The plant records the observed event, the approved action and the accepted physical outcome, each with its own measurement basis.
AT THE CUSTOMER PROMISE · THE PARALLEL- Customer promise. The same plant's finance team will not report recovered saleable gas or collected revenue from a lower flare estimate; each claim needs its own measurement basis and physical mechanism. Environmental and commercial evidence stay connected without collapsing into one unverified benefit. Same loop, two separate claims.
- THE DOCTRINE
A report-preparation assistant should be evaluated as a reporting capability, rather than credited with an environmental outcome it did not cause.
When one number is used to support three claims, ask for three measurement bases.
21:00 – 25:00
Reconstruct the saving, and your wrap
- Rebuild one claimed improvement from accepted meter records, comparable output, operating conditions and costs. Identify the intervention and the simultaneous changes. Then ask which part can reasonably be attributed to the analytical capability.
- Keep unresolved attribution provisional. A disciplined reduction in a claimed benefit improves the investment record and protects capital for applications that change your accepted economics.
- Before you close: name the claim, its comparable result, its baseline and its simultaneous changes for your Session 1 decision. That is Section 8 of your 90-Day AI Leadership Plan.
- Pop Quiz 2 opens now: five questions, closed book, on Sessions 6 to 8. Sit it, then write your assignment.
A smaller benefit you can defend is worth more than a large one you cannot explain.
Key Terms
Comparable operating result
The accepted output against which resource use is compared, with feed, load, hours, configuration and product mix preserved, so a saving is not just lower throughput.
Baseline
A defined comparison stating its variables, validation boundary and missing regimes; not a number chosen because it flatters the result.
Quantity effect and price effect
The part of a cost change caused by using less, separated from the part caused by a changed rate. An application is credited only with the mechanism it changed.
Routine flaring
In the World Bank's Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 initiative, flaring distinguished from safety and other non-routine flaring; a commitment framework, not proof of a facility's outcome.
Self-Check — Before You Submit
1. Using the book's assumptions (₦26.4 million monthly baseline, ₦600,000 recurring cost, ₦10 million initial cost), what is simplified payback at a verified 3% reduction?
- A. About 6.61 months
- B. About 12.6 months
- C. About 16.7 months
- D. About 52.08 months
D. About 52.08 months — 3% gives ₦792,000 gross, ₦192,000 net, and ₦10 million divided by ₦192,000 is about 52.08 months. 6.61 months is the tempting answer because it is the 8% case; 12.6 months ignores the recurring cost.
2. A fictional compression station reports 8% lower electricity consumption in the month an AI advisory went live. Accepted output also fell 8% and a major repair was completed. What should the sponsor do?
- A. Book the 8% saving to the advisory
- B. Treat the claim as unestablished: compare against a comparable output, list the simultaneous changes and keep any attribution provisional
- C. Reject the advisory as worthless
- D. Ask the vendor to recalculate the baseline until the saving holds
B. Treat the claim as unestablished: compare against a comparable output, list the simultaneous changes and keep any attribution provisional — Lower consumption with equally lower output does not establish efficiency, and a repair month is not sufficient evidence of an AI effect. Rejecting the advisory outright is the opposite error; the evidence is unresolved, not negative. Reshaping the baseline to fit is exactly what a baseline must not be.
3. A plant's estimated flare quantity fell after a reporting assistant was introduced. Which claim does the book allow on that evidence alone?
- A. Methane emissions fell
- B. Saleable gas was recovered
- C. The reporting capability can be evaluated as a reporting capability
- D. Revenue increased
C. The reporting capability can be evaluated as a reporting capability — Flaring, methane and recovered gas are different claims, each needing its own measurement basis and mechanism. The tempting answer is reduced methane, but a lower flare estimate does not establish it, and a reporting assistant should not be credited with an environmental outcome it did not cause.
Today’s Assignment
Write Section 8 of your plan: a comparable operating result, a baseline that explains the difference and one energy, utility, loss or flaring claim reconstructed.
- Name the energy, utility, loss or flaring claim that bears on your Session 1 decision, or one your company has already made.
- Define the comparable operating result: the energy boundary, the useful output and the conditions that must be preserved for the comparison.
- Define the baseline, its variables and validation boundary, and list every simultaneous change that could explain the difference.
- Reconstruct the claimed saving as far as your company's records allow, separating quantity effect from price effect, and state which part can reasonably be attributed to an analytical capability and which remains provisional.
- The honest part: where your business has reported a saving, flare reduction or recovered quantity on weaker evidence than this. If no AI is in use yet, that is normal; reconstruct the claim in the proposal in front of you. Aim for 400 to 900 words.
YOUR 90-DAY PLAN
Section 8 — A comparable operating result, a baseline that explains the difference and one claim reconstructed.
How this is marked — the rubric
| Defines the comparable operating result with its energy boundary and useful output | 25 |
| States a baseline with variables and validation boundary, and lists the simultaneous changes | 25 |
| Reconstructs the claim from records, separating quantity and price effects | 25 |
| Separates attributable from provisional benefit and keeps distinct claims distinct, with an honest example | 25 |
| Total · pass mark 70 | 100 |
Submitting session 8
Write your answer in Word or Google Docs. The first line must read
Write your answer in Word or Google Docs. The first line must read
Session: 8, or the submission is refused. Upload the Word file (.docx), or switch to the Google Doc tab and paste your document’s share link.Marked against the rubric above and returned as a written letter, saved to your progress page. Do not submit until you have passed the self-check above.ASSESSMENT NOW OPEN
Pop Quiz 2 — Nominations, Interfaces and Energy Claims opens now. Sit it before you start the next session — it is how you find out whether the doctrine landed, and the practice papers may be resat as often as you like.
Sit Pop Quiz 2 →Closed book, no notes, and Coach Ritchie switches himself off while you sit it.Capabilities Covered
Comparable operating resultsBaseline designSavings attributionSeparating environmental claimsBenefit reconstruction
Chapters 11 and 12 · CNG and LPGSESSION 9
CNG Compression and Distribution
Why This Matters
A CNG business can have spare compression and still be unable to sell another unit, because loading, transport, customer unloading and return form one cycle, and the slowest restriction decides the day. Today you model the complete cycle behind your decision, count capacity once, separate what is uncertain from what is simply not allowed, and name who releases the movement. The same discipline applies to any delivery or transfer cycle: a tanker loop, a cylinder round, a maintenance crew's circuit. If your company does not run CNG, apply this to the cycle in your own business without assuming its evidence or controls transfer from this one.
25-Minute Module
0:00 – 5:00
Model the complete cycle
- Loading, transport, customer unloading and return form a cycle. A change in one stage creates additional accepted service only where the other stages permit it.
- DOE's Alternative Fuels Data Center describes CNG as natural gas stored in a compressed gaseous state, distinguishing it from LNG (U.S. DOE, AFDC, Natural Gas Fuel Basics). The book is clear that published vehicle examples are not a design basis for an industrial transport installation; design follows the actual equipment and accepted engineering arrangements.
- Represent each transport unit's identity, accepted payload basis, equipment status, loading time, departure, arrival, unloading, return and readiness. Separate product carried from product accepted by the customer and residual product retained after delivery.
- THE DOCTRINE
Payload is a technical and measurement matter rather than a constant inferred from the vehicle's name.
Ask where time accumulates in the cycle before anyone proposes buying more of anything.
5:00 – 10:00
Count capacity once
- Nameplate compression, loading capability, transport capacity and receiving capacity are different measures. The completed service is limited by their combined interaction; as Session 3 established, the binding constraint decides where effort pays.
- Define availability consistently. If observed cycle time already includes downtime, adding a separate downtime factor may count the same restriction twice. If cycle time represents an available unit and planned interruption is separate, the factor may be appropriate. Make the basis clear before comparing options.
- Long-run average capacity differs from a daily schedule. A fractional number of cycles is useful for an average comparison but impossible on a specific day; dispatch needs actual units, start times, return times and customer windows.
When two availability factors appear in one formula, ask whether they describe the same lost hours.
10:00 – 15:00
The faster cycle that adds no sales
- The book's simplified case, all assumed: six compatible units each carrying 4,000 standard cubic metres, a 36-hour cycle and a separate scheduling availability factor of 85%.
Assumed case Fleet capacity per day Loading cap 12,000 Loading cap 15,000 36-hour cycle: 6 × 4,000 × 24/36 × 85% 13,600 12,000 delivered 13,600 delivered 30-hour cycle: 6 × 4,000 × 24/30 × 85% 16,320 12,000 delivered 15,000 delivered Incremental accepted delivery 2,720 on paper None 1,400 - At loading capacity of 12,000 and demand above it, both cycles are capped by loading: the fleet improvement adds no daily sales. It may still improve resilience or reduce resources needed, but those are separate mechanisms. At 15,000, the gain is 1,400, not 2,720. At an assumed ₦100 contribution and 25 operating days, that is ₦3.5 million gross monthly opportunity; less an assumed ₦2 million monthly cost, ₦1.5 million simplified net. If customer receiving capability falls to 13,000, the additional sales mechanism disappears.
- THE DOCTRINE
Show all three restrictions, loading, fleet and receiving, before approving the intervention. The arithmetic describes an assumed average, not a certified operating capacity or a dispatchable schedule.
Compare the proposed AI advisory with a simpler queue or slot rule. If the slot rule resolves it, use the slot rule.
15:00 – 20:00
Uncertainty, eligibility and release authority
- An unavailable unit is ineligible until accepted readiness is established; a road-access condition or customer restriction may also be a necessary constraint. Travel and waiting time can be uncertain within an eligible plan. Mixing the two into one confidence score hides what the planner must resolve. Forecast travel or queue uncertainty; check eligibility against accepted records.
- The shortest route is not necessarily the best service if the arrival conflicts with unloading. Use stable route and customer identities, and keep data permissions clear where location and personnel information are used. A forecast that becomes accurate ten minutes before arrival may help customer communication but be too late for loading allocation.
- IN THE PHYSICAL SUPPLY · THE WORKED CASE
- Physical supply. In a fictional CNG distributor, the model may recommend a loading slot or draft a dispatch plan. Release requires the accepted equipment, product, personnel, receiving and commercial checks, and the model never alters the loading procedure, pressure limits or equipment acceptance.
AT THE CUSTOMER PROMISE · THE PARALLEL- Customer promise. The customer's confirmation can expire or change after planning. The record names who checks each dependency and who releases the movement, and preserves a hold state rather than treating the earlier schedule as permanently valid.
- Do not reward a planner for silently changing a required condition to make the schedule work. Preserve a rejected recommendation with its reason: repeated rejection for customer access may reveal a missing constraint, not a training problem.
One unusually fast trip is an anecdote. Repeated accepted cycles across conditions are evidence.
20:00 – 25:00
Paying to reduce delay exposure, and your wrap
- The book's illustrative route choice: Route A costs ₦400,000 with an assumed 25% probability of a ₦600,000 late-service consequence; Route B costs ₦470,000 with 8%. Expected cost is ₦550,000 for A and ₦518,000 for B, so B is lower by ₦32,000. B's extra ₦70,000 against a 17-point probability reduction breaks even at a consequence of about ₦411,765. No current Nigerian route risk or contract charge is implied.
- THE DOCTRINE
Expected cost is not sufficient where a necessary service or protection condition applies, and a small expected advantage from limited data does not establish a dependable improvement.
- State the accepted objective: lower cost, less accepted shortfall, fewer late arrivals, lower funding or another agreed goal, with the no-change schedule beside it. Then replay a difficult day: rebuild the evidence available at each planning decision, run the existing schedule beside the advisory, and find where a different decision was both feasible and useful before the window closed.
- Before you close: sketch the cycle behind your Session 1 decision and name its binding restriction and its release authority. That is Section 9 of your 90-Day AI Leadership Plan. Write your assignment now.
The aim of the replay is not to reproduce hindsight. It is to show that better information could have supported a legitimate action in time.
Key Terms
Complete cycle
Loading, transport, unloading and return treated as one system; a gain in one stage adds accepted service only where the others permit it.
Double counting availability
Applying a downtime factor to a cycle time that already includes downtime, so the same lost hours reduce capacity twice.
Uncertainty versus eligibility
Travel or waiting time may be uncertain within a plan; an unready unit or unmet access condition makes a task ineligible. The two must not share one confidence score.
Release authority
The named person who releases a movement after equipment, product, personnel, receiving and commercial checks; a model may draft the plan but does not release it.
Self-Check — Before You Submit
1. In the book's CNG case, cutting the cycle from 36 to 30 hours raises average fleet capacity from 13,600 to 16,320 units per day. Accepted loading capacity is 15,000. What is the incremental accepted delivery?
- A. 2,720
- B. 1,400
- C. 0
- D. 3,320
B. 1,400 — The original fleet limits delivery to 13,600 and the faster fleet is capped by loading at 15,000, so the gain is 1,400. 2,720 is the tempting answer because it is the fleet arithmetic, but the completed service is limited by the combined restrictions.
2. A planning tool reports a 72% confidence score for a dispatch, combining an uncertain travel time with a trailer whose readiness has not been accepted. What should the operations director require?
- A. Accept the dispatch, because 72% is above the threshold
- B. Raise the confidence threshold to 90%
- C. Retrain the model on more trips
- D. Separate the two: the unready trailer is ineligible until readiness is accepted, and only the travel time is treated as uncertain
D. Separate the two: the unready trailer is ineligible until readiness is accepted, and only the travel time is treated as uncertain — Eligibility is not a probability: an unavailable unit is ineligible until accepted readiness is established. Raising the threshold is tempting but still mixes the two states into one score and hides what the planner must resolve.
3. Under the book's assumptions, Route B costs ₦70,000 more than Route A and cuts the probability of the late-service consequence by 17 percentage points. Above roughly what consequence does B have lower expected cost?
- A. About ₦411,765
- B. ₦600,000
- C. About ₦70,000
- D. About ₦32,000
A. About ₦411,765 — ₦70,000 divided by 0.17 is about ₦411,765. ₦600,000 is the assumed consequence in the example and ₦32,000 is B's expected-cost advantage at that consequence, not the break-even. And expected cost alone is not sufficient where a necessary service or protection condition applies.
Today’s Assignment
Write Section 9 of your plan: the complete cycle behind your Session 1 decision, capacity counted once, uncertainty separated from eligibility and the release authority named.
- Model the complete cycle behind your decision, stage by stage, and name its binding restriction with the evidence for it.
- Show how capacity is counted in your business: which measures are combined, how availability is defined and where a restriction could be counted twice.
- Separate uncertainty from eligibility: list the conditions that make a task ineligible and the quantities that are genuinely uncertain.
- State the accepted objective, the no-change alternative and who releases the movement, including how a changed confirmation is held.
- Choose one difficult day in your company and describe how you would replay it with the evidence available at each planning decision.
- The honest part: where your company has claimed capacity from a faster stage that the rest of the cycle could not absorb. If your business does not run CNG, use your own delivery or transfer cycle. If no AI is in use yet, that is normal. Aim for 400 to 900 words.
YOUR 90-DAY PLAN
Section 9 — The complete cycle, capacity counted once, uncertainty separated from eligibility and the release authority.
How this is marked — the rubric
| Models the complete cycle and names the binding restriction with evidence | 25 |
| Counts capacity once, with an explicit availability basis | 20 |
| Separates uncertainty from eligibility and names the release authority by role | 30 |
| States the objective and a feasible replay of a real difficult day, with an honest example | 25 |
| Total · pass mark 70 | 100 |
Submitting session 9
Write your answer in Word or Google Docs. The first line must read
Write your answer in Word or Google Docs. The first line must read
Session: 9, or the submission is refused. Upload the Word file (.docx), or switch to the Google Doc tab and paste your document’s share link.Marked against the rubric above and returned as a written letter, saved to your progress page. Do not submit until you have passed the self-check above.Capabilities Covered
Cycle modellingCapacity without double countingUncertainty versus eligibilityRelease authorityDecision replay
Chapters 13 and 14 · CNG and LPGSESSION 10
LPG Storage, Filling and Distribution
Why This Matters
LPG makes a hard truth visible: a company can have product in the tank and a sound sales forecast and still fail the customer, because product, containers and transactions are three different things. When they are forced into one number, shortages can hide, adjustments can remove evidence and released cash can be reported as profit. Today you keep the three ledgers distinct, treat every stock adjustment as a decision someone must own, and separate margin, funding release and profit in your decision's economics. If your business does not run LPG, apply this to the product, equipment and transaction records behind your own decision. This session closes Week 2.
25-Minute Module
0:00 – 4:00
Product, containers and transactions
- LPG distribution connects bulk product, storage, filling, containers and customers. A company can have a sound sales forecast while lacking usable stock or compatible accepted containers. Represent each state separately.
- DOE's propane overview describes pressurised liquid storage and distinguishes the product from natural gas (U.S. DOE, AFDC, Propane Fuel Basics). The book adds that commercial LPG composition should follow the accepted product specification for the actual supply; a foreign vehicle-fuel specification does not automatically apply to a Nigerian filling operation.
- THE DOCTRINE
A customer order should link the product, container and transaction records without making them interchangeable.
Ask which ledger explains a shortfall before anyone proposes a model to fix it.
4:00 – 9:00
Stock, filling and the demand that cannot be filled
- A count of containers multiplied by nominal content is not automatically an accepted measurement of product transferred, and held or disputed product is not available stock because the ERP quantity is positive.
- The book's fictional case: 20 tonnes of accepted available product, demand of 18 tonnes, but the accepted filling and compatible-container arrangement supports only 12 tonnes. Feasible filled delivery is 12, leaving six tonnes unmet despite positive product. Buying more bulk does not solve a filling constraint; a demand model that keeps recommending replenishment targets the wrong mechanism.
- If an accepted change raises feasible filling to 16 tonnes at an assumed ₦300,000, the four extra tonnes at an assumed ₦100,000 contribution give ₦400,000 and simplified net benefit of ₦100,000. If those tonnes would have been filled later without lost contribution, the permanent-sales benefit is overstated. This is illustrative, not a recommended filling method or operating limit.
- Forecast eligible demand with lead time, usable stock and cash release, compare a simple reorder rule first, and evaluate shortages and excess stock separately.
Increased forecast accuracy may be economically irrelevant if an inflexible replenishment arrangement determines the stock.
9:00 – 14:00
Release, adjustments and reconciliation
- THE DOCTRINE
A planning advisory does not replace inspection, filling checks or the accepted release process. Technical and operating owners establish the applicable procedures and limits.
- A document assistant can retrieve the current procedure but must show version and applicability. Where the source is missing or conflicting, the issue returns to the accountable owner rather than becoming a new instruction.
- A stock adjustment is a decision. Recurring adjustments can make a ledger look reconciled while removing the evidence of unresolved differences. Each correction links to its source, cause, reviewer and authority, and an anomaly model must not edit the accepted stock ledger because it predicts a better closing quantity.
- Reconcile quantity, transaction and cash with linked identifiers. A receipt establishes product received, an accepted sale the transaction, a cash record the collection. A payment message does not create delivery, and a dispatch record does not create collected cash. Investigate unmatched transfers, late receipts, duplicates and basis differences before attributing variance to physical loss.
If a correction cannot be reconstructed by another reviewer, it is not a correction. It is a disappearance.
14:00 – 19:00
Turnover, margin and funding
- The book's teaching sensitivity fixes purchase cost at ₦1.2 million and distribution at ₦100,000 per tonne. Selling 100 tonnes at ₦1.5 million: revenue ₦150 million, purchase ₦120 million, distribution ₦10 million, contribution ₦20 million before overhead, financing and tax. It is not a Nigerian price forecast.
Assumed sale price per tonne Contribution per tonne Contribution on 100 sold tonnes ₦1.50 million ₦200,000 ₦20 million ₦1.35 million ₦50,000 ₦5 million ₦1.30 million ₦0 ₦0 - In this assumed case, a 10% fall in price cuts contribution per tonne by 75%. A forecast supporting higher turnover can carry much less value after a modest margin change. Stock valuation follows the applicable accounting treatment.
- IN THE PHYSICAL SUPPLY · THE WORKED CASE
- Physical supply. If only 80 tonnes sell, 20 tonnes remain in the tank carrying ₦24 million of purchase cost. Contribution on the 80 sold is ₦16 million: ₦120 million revenue less ₦96 million product and ₦8 million distribution.
AT THE CUSTOMER PROMISE · THE PARALLEL- Customer promise. If the 100 tonnes were already paid for, cash is locked in inventory despite positive contribution. A better stock policy might release that ₦24 million, but releasing ₦24 million of inventory cost is not ₦24 million of profit. Any financing benefit is calculated separately on accepted funding assumptions, and the same funding is never counted twice.
- THE DOCTRINE
Demand information can release cash without creating profit. A working-capital improvement achieved by repeated customer shortage may be commercially unacceptable; management approves the service and funding policy jointly.
Ask for margin, funding release and profit on three separate lines. If they arrive as one, send it back.
19:00 – 25:00
Commercial authority, and close Week 2
- An assistant may reconcile stock evidence, draft a customer statement or propose a price review. Authorised owners retain decisions on credit, price, product release and stock correction. A price change needs an effective time and accepted scope so earlier orders are not silently repriced.
- Two reviews to adopt. The three-ledger review reconciles product, containers and transactions for one interval and identifies which ledger explains each variance. One accepted month-end reconciliation rebuilds purchase, stock, sales, cost and collection, finds where quantity, value or timing becomes uncertain, and introduces analytical support exactly there.
- A dashboard that improves only one ledger should not claim the result of all three.
- Before you close: name the three ledgers behind your Session 1 decision and how an adjustment is authorised. That is Section 10 of your 90-Day AI Leadership Plan, and it completes Week 2.
- Practice Exam 2 opens now: fifteen questions, closed book, on Sessions 1 to 10, closing Week 2. Sit it before Session 11, then write your assignment.
The standard is a commercial result supported by physical evidence and legitimate transactions. Hold every report to it.
Key Terms
Three ledgers
Product, container or equipment, and transaction records, kept distinct and linked by identifiers so each shortfall or variance can be traced to the ledger that explains it.
Stock adjustment
A decision to correct an accepted stock record, linked to its source, cause, reviewer and authority; never made by an anomaly model on its own prediction.
Contribution
Revenue less purchase and incremental distribution cost, before overhead, financing and tax; it can fall sharply with a modest price change.
Funding release
Cash freed by holding less inventory or holding it for less time; distinct from accounting profit and from any recurring financing benefit, which is calculated separately.
Self-Check — Before You Submit
1. A fictional LPG operation has 20 tonnes of accepted product and 18 tonnes of demand, but filling and compatible containers support only 12 tonnes. The demand model recommends buying more bulk product. What is the right response?
- A. Approve the purchase, since demand exceeds delivery
- B. Address the filling and container constraint, or agree a reschedule, because more bulk product does not solve it
- C. Retrain the demand model to forecast 12 tonnes
- D. Record six tonnes as permanent lost sales
B. Address the filling and container constraint, or agree a reschedule, because more bulk product does not solve it — Six tonnes are unmet despite positive product; the constraint is filling and containers. Retraining to forecast 12 is the subtle trap: it normalises the constraint as demand.
2. Under the book's assumptions, 20 unsold tonnes carry ₦24 million of purchase cost. A new stock policy would avoid buying them. How should the board paper describe the ₦24 million?
- A. As ₦24 million of additional profit
- B. As ₦24 million of contribution
- C. As a cost saving equal to the financing rate times ₦24 million, with nothing else to report
- D. As funding released from inventory, with any financing benefit calculated separately on accepted assumptions
D. As funding released from inventory, with any financing benefit calculated separately on accepted assumptions — Releasing ₦24 million of inventory cost does not mean the company earned ₦24 million of profit; reporting it as profit is the tempting error.
3. With purchase cost of ₦1.2 million and distribution cost of ₦100,000 per tonne fixed, selling price falls 10% from ₦1.5 million. What happens to contribution per tonne?
- A. It falls 75%, from ₦200,000 to ₦50,000
- B. It falls 10%, from ₦200,000 to ₦180,000
- C. It falls to zero
- D. It is unchanged because volume is unchanged
A. It falls 75%, from ₦200,000 to ₦50,000 — ₦1.35 million less ₦1.2 million less ₦100,000 is ₦50,000, a 75% fall. Assuming contribution falls in proportion to price is the trap; zero arrives only at ₦1.30 million.
Today’s Assignment
Write Section 10 of your plan: the three ledgers behind your Session 1 decision kept distinct, an adjustment treated as a decision and margin separated from funding.
- Name the product, container or equipment, and transaction records behind your decision (the three ledgers or their equivalents), and the identifiers that link them.
- State how a stock or quantity adjustment is evidenced and authorised in your company: source, cause, reviewer, authority, and what an analytical tool may and may not do to the accepted ledger.
- Reconcile quantity, transaction and cash for one interval as far as your records allow, and name the point where quantity, value or timing becomes uncertain.
- Separate margin, funding release and profit in the decision's economics, and show the service consequence of any lower-stock policy.
- The honest part: where your business has closed a variance by adjustment without evidence, or reported released cash as profit. If your business does not run LPG, use the equivalent records behind your own decision. If no AI is in use yet, that is normal. Aim for 400 to 900 words.
YOUR 90-DAY PLAN
Section 10 — The three ledgers kept distinct, an adjustment treated as a decision and margin separated from funding.
How this is marked — the rubric
| Keeps the three ledgers or their equivalents distinct, with linking identifiers named | 25 |
| States how an adjustment is evidenced and authorised, with an owner by role and limits on any tool | 25 |
| Reconciles quantity, transaction and cash for one interval and locates the uncertainty | 25 |
| Separates margin, funding release and profit, with an honest example | 25 |
| Total · pass mark 70 | 100 |
Submitting session 10
Write your answer in Word or Google Docs. The first line must read
Write your answer in Word or Google Docs. The first line must read
Session: 10, or the submission is refused. Upload the Word file (.docx), or switch to the Google Doc tab and paste your document’s share link.Marked against the rubric above and returned as a written letter, saved to your progress page. Do not submit until you have passed the self-check above.ASSESSMENT NOW OPEN
Practice Exam 2 — Supply, LNG, Industrial Energy, CNG and LPG opens now. Sit it before you start the next session — it is how you find out whether the doctrine landed, and the practice papers may be resat as often as you like.
Sit Practice Exam 2 →Closed book, no notes, and Coach Ritchie switches himself off while you sit it.Capabilities Covered
Three-ledger controlStock adjustment authorityQuantity, transaction and cash reconciliationMargin and funding separationRelease discipline