The task and original case
Build an issue register that keeps severity and confidence visible even when a combined score ties. The practice rule multiplies two values, but it is an invented ranking aid. Its result does not establish a universal priority or remove the need for a reasoned decision.
| Case element | Value or requirement |
|---|---|
| Inputs | An invented ranking rule multiplies severity and confidence: itemA 3×0.6;itemB 2×0.9. |
| Build | An issue register, declared rubric and a tie-resolution decision. |
This is an original invented exercise. It is independent practice, with no employer assessment or open-vacancy claim. Download the inputs, attempt your own result, then open the separate answer key.
Data and worked inputs
Build a result another person can follow
Assign item A severity 3 and confidence 0.6, and item B severity 2 and confidence 0.9. Define severity's scale and what confidence means in this exercise. Calculate score as severity ×confidence, keeping both input dimensions beside the product. Record the evidence behind each judgment rather than treating an unexplained decimal as measured certainty.
Use a README to document the rule, its version and how ties are handled; GitHub's documentation describes the role of a README. For this case, choose a follow-up action based on a declared criterion such as gathering evidence on the more severe but less certain issue. Record why that criterion fits the task, rather than adding an arbitrary hidden tie-break value.
Sources[1]
Check the worked result
A scores 3 ×0.6 =1.8. B scores 2 ×0.9 =1.8. The combined scores tie, but A has greater stated severity and lower confidence. B has lower severity and greater confidence. A single sorted score column cannot convey those differences.
Your recommendation can propose verifying A's uncertain evidence while retaining B's known issue, if that is the declared decision context. It should not claim that multiplication proves A or B must always be fixed first.
Make the failure visible
Change the severity scale from 1–3 to 1–5 without recalibrating the judgments. The scores no longer mean the same thing, so the rule version must change or the comparison must be rebuilt. Also test confidence outside 0–1 and a missing value. Invalid or unknown inputs should not receive a fabricated precise score.
Revise it and ask someone to reproduce it
Ask a peer to explain the tie from the raw dimensions and challenge your follow-up criterion. Add a third issue and apply the same rubric consistently. Keep the original recommendation and the revised evidence requirement so a reviewer can see whether your priority changed because of facts or because you changed the scoring rule.
- Severity and confidence stay visible beside each product.
- The tied 1.8 scores have a declared follow-up decision.
- Rule versions and invalid inputs are handled explicitly.
Describe the work accurately
After completing your own version, you could adapt this project bullet: “Created an independent issue-priority register preserving severity, confidence, tied scores and an explicitly reasoned follow-up decision.”
Use Projects or Independent practice as the heading. Keep the input files, result and revision together. Describe only your own completed work; the invented numbers are model outputs, not employer results or measured business impact.