A scarce-resource commitment has a counterfactual cost: the value of the best feasible alternative it displaces under a specified objective and horizon.
Follow the typed arrows here for actual relationships. Fit diagram shows the whole graph; choose Readable size to inspect the full text, or Fit width for an expanded page view.
Enable JavaScript to view the diagram. The complete role and bridge text is available below.
flowchart LR
subgraph SO["Ontological"]
direction LR
N2["<b>1 #183; O1</b><br/><br/>Count the best feasible alternative displaced#44; not every alternative added together#46;<br/><br/>Committing scarce resources to a feasible choice displaces alternatives#59; its opportunity cost is the value of the best feasible displaced alternative under the same objective and horizon#46;<br/><br/>Mutually exclusive uses cannot receive the same committed resource at the same time#46; Comparing the best displaced use identifies a counterfactual value#59; it is neither an additional invoice nor a sum of incompatible alternatives#46;<br/><br/>Conditions#58; A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon#46;"]
class N2 ontological
end
style SO fill:#ffffff,stroke:#c5cec8,color:#202c29
subgraph SD["Decision"]
direction LR
N0["<b>#9733; 2 #183; D1 #9733; Primary view</b><br/><br/>Compare what the choice delivers with what the best feasible alternative could deliver#46;<br/><br/>Before committing scarce resources#44; compare feasible alternatives and their displaced value under a stated objective#44; horizon and constraints#59; retain material uncertainty and avoid double#45;counting resource costs#46;<br/><br/>An explicit counterfactual makes the cost of exclusion visible#46; A common objective allows comparison#44; while scenario ranges prevent uncertain values from masquerading as observed facts#46;<br/><br/>Conditions#58; A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon#46; Feasible alternatives can be specified with their shared resource requirements#59; include no change when feasible and permitted#46; Decision#45;relevant values or defensible ranges under the same objective and horizon are available for comparing alternatives#46; The decision#45;maker can assess obligations and resource constraints and has authority for the contemplated allocation#46;"]
class N0 primary
class N0 decision
N1["<b>3 #183; D2</b><br/><br/>Compare feasible next increments#59; use bundles when increments cannot stand alone#46;<br/><br/>For feasible divisible increments sharing one binding resource and a common objective#44; compare incremental value per unit and recompute after each increment#46; Stop using this local ranking when indivisibility#44; complementarities#44; increasing#45;return thresholds or interacting constraints require bundle comparison#44; even when already modeled#46;<br/><br/>Marginal values describe the next change#44; not an option#8217;s average historic return#46; Updating them avoids fixed rankings after diminishing returns#46; Without the recorded assumptions#44; a locally attractive increment can block a better feasible bundle#46;<br/><br/>Conditions#58; A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon#46; Feasible increments and their estimated incremental values and resource use are available under a common objective and horizon#46; One shared binding resource has a known remaining budget#44; and useful increments are divisible#46; Values have no relevant complementarities or increasing#45;return thresholds#44; whether modeled or unmodeled#44; and there are no other interacting binding constraints#46; The resource owner can assess relevant obligations and has authority for the incremental allocation#46;"]
class N1 decision
end
style SD fill:#ffffff,stroke:#c5cec8,color:#202c29
R0["<b>R1 #183; grounds</b><br/><br/>When D1#8217;s objective is accepted#44; resource displacement makes the best forgone feasible use relevant#46; The description alone supplies neither the objective nor the values#46;<br/><br/>Conditions#58; A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon#46;"]
class R0 rationale
N2 --- R0
R0 -->|"grounds"| N0
classDef ontological fill:#e6f0fa,stroke:#829fba,color:#202c29
classDef epistemic fill:#f8e8e8,stroke:#bd9195,color:#202c29
classDef decision fill:#e8f2e8,stroke:#91ab8c,color:#202c29
classDef primary stroke:#285c4c,stroke-width:4px
classDef rationale fill:#fff8e8,stroke:#aa9366,stroke-dasharray:5 3,color:#202c29
classDef neutral fill:#f2f2f2,stroke:#929b96,color:#202c29
linkStyle default stroke:#7f8983,color:#202c29
Grounds offers a scoped reason, not proof or a mandatory prerequisite. Requires points from the dependent role to its prerequisite. Uses references another Card and is not independent evidence. Colors identify stacks; they do not rate support.
When D1’s objective is accepted, resource displacement makes the best forgone feasible use relevant. The description alone supplies neither the objective nor the values.
Conditions: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon.
Provisional definitions. Conditions, evidence assessments, and hypothetical application results remain separate in the Card details below.
Decision · decision_implication
D1 · Primary view
Before committing scarce resources, compare feasible alternatives and their displaced value under a stated objective, horizon and constraints; retain material uncertainty and avoid double-counting resource costs.
Compare what the choice delivers with what the best feasible alternative could deliver.
An explicit counterfactual makes the cost of exclusion visible. A common objective allows comparison, while scenario ranges prevent uncertain values from masquerading as observed facts.
Conditions, method, and complete role fields
Role id
D1
Stack
Decision
Role type
decision_implication
Principle type
Procedural
Classification
Status
partial
Family ref
QEF-D-RESOURCE
Taxonomy version
qe-ontology-0.1.4
Reason
Allocating constrained resources among feasible alternatives fits Resource Allocation; no terminal family is justified for the general comparison.
Role summary
Before committing scarce resources, compare feasible alternatives and their displaced value under a stated objective, horizon and constraints; retain material uncertainty and avoid double-counting resource costs.
Compressed role insight
Compare what the choice delivers with what the best feasible alternative could deliver.
Mechanism or logic
An explicit counterfactual makes the cost of exclusion visible. A common objective allows comparison, while scenario ranges prevent uncertain values from masquerading as observed facts.
Scope
Shared condition refs
S1
Additional conditions
Condition id
D-OPTIONS
Kind
applicability
Statement
Feasible alternatives can be specified with their shared resource requirements; include no change when feasible and permitted.
Condition id
D-VALUES
Kind
applicability
Statement
Decision-relevant values or defensible ranges under the same objective and horizon are available for comparing alternatives.
Condition id
D-AUTH
Kind
applicability
Statement
The decision-maker can assess obligations and resource constraints and has authority for the contemplated allocation.
Review
reviewed
Review note
Internal definition compatibility review only; editorial acceptance, case facts and empirical validation remain separate.
Evidence refs
None recorded
Objective
Beneficiary
The responsible resource owner and affected stakeholders
Desired outcome
Select a feasible use justified against its best displaced alternative
Constraints
Respect obligations, safety and the available resource budget.
Keep the objective and horizon consistent across options.
Retain uncertainty and avoid counting a forgone resource value twice.
Failure mode if misapplied
An infeasible alternative, a changed objective or double-counted expense can make a beneficial choice appear wasteful; a numeric score can conceal unassessed obligations.
Action protocol
Trigger conditions
A commitment would exclude another feasible use of a scarce resource.
Steps
Name the resource owner, objective, horizon, constraints and actual decision authority.
List feasible alternatives or bundles, including no change when feasible and permitted, and identify which uses each commitment displaces.
Estimate comparable net outcomes or ranges; state whether resource costs are already included so they are not subtracted again.
Compare the best displaced feasible alternative with the proposed choice. If missing values or conflicting objectives prevent a defensible comparison, keep the result unresolved.
Record the selected option, assumptions and reconsideration threshold; revisit when feasibility, values or objectives change.
Review signals
Signal
A new feasible option, material value revision or changed constraint.
Interpretation
The recorded comparison may no longer describe the relevant choice.
Decision use
Reassess feasibility and the stated objective before relying on the result.
Limitations
This is a comparison procedure, not a universal optimizer or a financial recommendation.
A reported preference does not prove that the selected objective is appropriate.
Ontological · world_mechanic
O1
Committing scarce resources to a feasible choice displaces alternatives; its opportunity cost is the value of the best feasible displaced alternative under the same objective and horizon.
Count the best feasible alternative displaced, not every alternative added together.
Mutually exclusive uses cannot receive the same committed resource at the same time. Comparing the best displaced use identifies a counterfactual value; it is neither an additional invoice nor a sum of incompatible alternatives.
Conditions, method, and complete role fields
Role id
O1
Stack
Ontological
Role type
world_mechanic
Principle type
Structural
Classification
Status
classified
Family ref
QEF-O-SCAR
Taxonomy version
qe-ontology-0.1.4
Reason
The contribution describes competing feasible demands for a limited resource, rather than recommending a winner.
Role summary
Committing scarce resources to a feasible choice displaces alternatives; its opportunity cost is the value of the best feasible displaced alternative under the same objective and horizon.
Compressed role insight
Count the best feasible alternative displaced, not every alternative added together.
Mechanism or logic
Mutually exclusive uses cannot receive the same committed resource at the same time. Comparing the best displaced use identifies a counterfactual value; it is neither an additional invoice nor a sum of incompatible alternatives.
Scope
Shared condition refs
S1
Additional conditions
None recorded
Review
reviewed
Review note
Internal definition compatibility review only; editorial acceptance, case facts and empirical validation remain separate.
Evidence refs
EV1
Decision · decision_implication
D2
For feasible divisible increments sharing one binding resource and a common objective, compare incremental value per unit and recompute after each increment. Stop using this local ranking when indivisibility, complementarities, increasing-return thresholds or interacting constraints require bundle comparison, even when already modeled.
Compare feasible next increments; use bundles when increments cannot stand alone.
Marginal values describe the next change, not an option’s average historic return. Updating them avoids fixed rankings after diminishing returns. Without the recorded assumptions, a locally attractive increment can block a better feasible bundle.
Conditions, method, and complete role fields
Role id
D2
Stack
Decision
Role type
decision_implication
Principle type
Procedural
Classification
Status
partial
Family ref
QEF-D-RESOURCE
Taxonomy version
qe-ontology-0.1.4
Reason
A scoped incremental allocation choice remains in Resource Allocation, not a new family or a universal leverage mechanism.
Role summary
For feasible divisible increments sharing one binding resource and a common objective, compare incremental value per unit and recompute after each increment. Stop using this local ranking when indivisibility, complementarities, increasing-return thresholds or interacting constraints require bundle comparison, even when already modeled.
Compressed role insight
Compare feasible next increments; use bundles when increments cannot stand alone.
Mechanism or logic
Marginal values describe the next change, not an option’s average historic return. Updating them avoids fixed rankings after diminishing returns. Without the recorded assumptions, a locally attractive increment can block a better feasible bundle.
Scope
Shared condition refs
S1
Additional conditions
Condition id
D2-INPUT
Kind
applicability
Statement
Feasible increments and their estimated incremental values and resource use are available under a common objective and horizon.
Condition id
D2-RESOURCE
Kind
applicability
Statement
One shared binding resource has a known remaining budget, and useful increments are divisible.
Condition id
D2-INTERACTION
Kind
applicability
Statement
Values have no relevant complementarities or increasing-return thresholds, whether modeled or unmodeled, and there are no other interacting binding constraints.
Condition id
D2-AUTH
Kind
applicability
Statement
The resource owner can assess relevant obligations and has authority for the incremental allocation.
Review
reviewed
Review note
Internal definition compatibility review only; editorial acceptance, case facts and empirical validation remain separate.
Evidence refs
None recorded
Objective
Beneficiary
The resource owner and affected stakeholders
Desired outcome
Choose a useful feasible next increment while retaining the ability to reassess
Constraints
Stay within the resource budget and applicable obligations.
Use a common objective and horizon.
Do not infer global optimality beyond the stated assumptions.
Failure mode if misapplied
A ratio ranking can fund attractive fragments of an indivisible project, miss complementary bundles or known increasing-return thresholds, or exhaust a resource needed by a better overall choice.
Action protocol
Trigger conditions
An incremental resource-allocation choice is being considered within the recorded conditions.
Steps
Check divisibility, one-resource comparability and obligations. Exclude relevant complementarities, increasing-return thresholds and interacting binding constraints even when already modeled; otherwise compare complete feasible bundles using D1 or another suitable method.
Estimate each feasible next increment’s additional value and resource use, retaining uncertainty in the estimates.
Compare incremental ratios only among currently feasible increments. Stop if no positive-value increment is justified.
After an increment, update remaining budget and marginal values. If conditions cease to hold, stop this procedure and compare complete feasible bundles using D1 or another suitable method.
Record assumptions and compare realized results with expectations before repeating.
Review signals
Signal
Any relevant complementarity, increasing-return threshold, or second interacting binding resource, including one already modeled; or changed marginal values.
Interpretation
The recorded comparison may no longer describe the relevant choice.
Decision use
Stop local ranking when an excluded interaction is present and compare feasible bundles; otherwise reassess the recorded conditions and marginal values.
Limitations
This bounded heuristic is QE synthesis, not recovered wording of High-leverage first.
D1 is an alternative comparison when D2 is inapplicable, not an implicitly mandatory prerequisite.
When D1’s objective is accepted, resource displacement makes the best forgone feasible use relevant. The description alone supplies neither the objective nor the values.
Scope
Shared condition refs
S1
Additional conditions
None recorded
Review
reviewed
Review note
Internal definition compatibility review only; editorial acceptance, case facts and empirical validation remain separate.
Evidence refs
None recorded
Evidence assessments
Assessment id
EV1
Source ref
SRC-PILOT-OPENSTAX
Source location
Section 2.1, The Concept of Opportunity Cost and Marginal Decision-Making and Diminishing Marginal Utility
A choice sacrifices its next best alternative; marginal analysis compares the changes in benefits and costs. The assessment addresses this role summary only; formalization and procedure remain QE synthesis.
Limitations
One inspected conceptual passage is not an empirical validation or an independent replication.
The source does not support all other roles or hypothetical cases on this Card.
Source interpretation
Supplied expressions and QE transformations are separate from independently verified evidence.
Mappings and added qualifications
Mapping id
MAP-PILOT-OPENSTAX
Expression ref
X-PILOT-OPENSTAX
Target ref
Kind
card
Card id
QE48-C01
Mapping type
scoped_interpretation
Rationale
The passage informs the scoped contribution; the Card adds explicit applicability and interpretation limits. Related source context is not a claim of whole-passage equivalence.
Qualifications added
The Card’s exact scope, role separation, procedures and hypothetical cases are QE authoring.
Limitations
The source does not establish the complete Card, empirical reliability of its procedure or the historical intent of the supplied title.
Mapping id
MAP-PILOT-P48-01
Expression ref
X-PILOT-P48-01
Target ref
Kind
card
Card id
QE48-C01
Mapping type
scoped_interpretation
Rationale
Pilot interpretation under the reserved identity.
Qualifications added
Role-specific conditions, qualified meaning and any procedure are QE synthesis.
Limitations
Not a recovered original definition or accepted identity mapping.
Mapping id
MAP-PILOT-P48-12
Expression ref
X-PILOT-P48-12
Target ref
Kind
card
Card id
QE48-C01
Mapping type
scoped_interpretation
Rationale
Propose a bounded marginal-allocation contribution within Opportunity Cost; preserve the original candidate identity and do not treat this prototype route as an accepted merge.
Qualifications added
Role-specific conditions, qualified meaning and any procedure are QE synthesis.
Limitations
Not a recovered original definition or accepted identity mapping.
Referenced source expressions
Expression id
X-PILOT-OPENSTAX
Source ref
SRC-PILOT-OPENSTAX
Wording kind
qe_paraphrase
Text
A choice sacrifices its next best alternative; marginal analysis compares the changes in benefits and costs.
Location
Section 2.1, The Concept of Opportunity Cost and Marginal Decision-Making and Diminishing Marginal Utility
Claim status
QE paraphrase of inspected published passage; not a direct quotation or whole-Card endorsement.
Expression id
X-PILOT-P48-01
Source ref
SRC-PILOT-P48-01
Wording kind
supplied_expression
Text
Opportunity cost
Location
P48-01
Claim status
Supplied title, not verified historical source wording.
Expression id
X-PILOT-P48-12
Source ref
SRC-PILOT-P48-12
Wording kind
supplied_expression
Text
High-leverage first
Location
P48-12
Claim status
Supplied title, not verified historical source wording.
Source records
Source id
SRC-PILOT-OPENSTAX
Kind
published_text
Title
OpenStax, Principles of Economics 2e, section 2.1
Content
opportunity cost is the value of the next best alternative
A fictional team can allocate one day either to reduce a backlog by eight cases or to prevent an expected five equivalent cases next week. Both use the same service objective and horizon; the team has authority and obligations are satisfied.
Condition assessments
Condition ref
Owner ref
Kind
card
Card id
QE48-C01
Condition id
S1
State
satisfied
Basis
The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon.
Stipulated for this fictional case: Feasible alternatives can be specified with their shared resource requirements; include no change when feasible and permitted.
Stipulated for this fictional case: Decision-relevant values or defensible ranges under the same objective and horizon are available for comparing alternatives.
Stipulated for this fictional case: The decision-maker can assess obligations and resource constraints and has authority for the contemplated allocation.
The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality.
Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization.
Baseline scenario: A fictional team can allocate one day either to reduce a backlog by eight cases or to prevent an expected five equivalent cases next week. Both use the same service objective and horizon; the team has authority and obligations are satisfied. Variant override: The preventive outcome range is unavailable; the comparison cannot be completed. Other stipulations are unchanged.
Condition assessments
Condition ref
Owner ref
Kind
card
Card id
QE48-C01
Condition id
S1
State
satisfied
Basis
The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon.
Stipulated for this fictional case: Feasible alternatives can be specified with their shared resource requirements; include no change when feasible and permitted.
Stipulated for this fictional case: The decision-maker can assess obligations and resource constraints and has authority for the contemplated allocation.
The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality.
Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization.
Baseline scenario: A fictional team can allocate one day either to reduce a backlog by eight cases or to prevent an expected five equivalent cases next week. Both use the same service objective and horizon; the team has authority and obligations are satisfied. Variant override: The team lacks authority to reassign the day. Other stipulations are unchanged.
Condition assessments
Condition ref
Owner ref
Kind
card
Card id
QE48-C01
Condition id
S1
State
satisfied
Basis
The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon.
Stipulated for this fictional case: Feasible alternatives can be specified with their shared resource requirements; include no change when feasible and permitted.
Stipulated for this fictional case: Decision-relevant values or defensible ranges under the same objective and horizon are available for comparing alternatives.
The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality.
Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization.
A fictional team allocates two hours among independent divisible activities. Next-hour benefits are A: 6 then 2, B: 5 then 1 under one agreed service objective. A then B yields 11; all obligations and authority are stipulated.
Condition assessments
Condition ref
Owner ref
Kind
card
Card id
QE48-C01
Condition id
S1
State
satisfied
Basis
The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon.
Stipulated for this fictional case: Feasible increments and their estimated incremental values and resource use are available under a common objective and horizon.
Stipulated for this fictional case: Values have no relevant complementarities or increasing-return thresholds, whether modeled or unmodeled, and there are no other interacting binding constraints.
The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality.
Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization.
Baseline scenario: A fictional team allocates two hours among independent divisible activities. Next-hour benefits are A: 6 then 2, B: 5 then 1 under one agreed service objective. A then B yields 11; all obligations and authority are stipulated. Variant override: The next-increment value of B is unknown. Other stipulations are unchanged.
Condition assessments
Condition ref
Owner ref
Kind
card
Card id
QE48-C01
Condition id
S1
State
satisfied
Basis
The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon.
Stipulated for this fictional case: Values have no relevant complementarities or increasing-return thresholds, whether modeled or unmodeled, and there are no other interacting binding constraints.
The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality.
Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization.
Baseline scenario: A fictional team allocates two hours among independent divisible activities. Next-hour benefits are A: 6 then 2, B: 5 then 1 under one agreed service objective. A then B yields 11; all obligations and authority are stipulated. Variant override: Project A requires an indivisible two-hour block before any benefit appears. Other stipulations are unchanged.
Condition assessments
Condition ref
Owner ref
Kind
card
Card id
QE48-C01
Condition id
S1
State
satisfied
Basis
The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon.
Stipulated for this fictional case: Feasible increments and their estimated incremental values and resource use are available under a common objective and horizon.
Stipulated for this fictional case: Values have no relevant complementarities or increasing-return thresholds, whether modeled or unmodeled, and there are no other interacting binding constraints.
The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality.
Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization.
A fictional team must choose one of two permitted maintenance options by a deadline. Inaction is forbidden. Both feasible options have comparable resource use and values under the same objective and horizon; authority and obligations are assessed.
Condition assessments
Condition ref
Owner ref
Kind
card
Card id
QE48-C01
Condition id
S1
State
satisfied
Basis
The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon.
A fictional team must choose one of two permitted maintenance options by a deadline. Inaction is forbidden. Both feasible options have comparable resource use and values under the same objective and horizon; authority and obligations are assessed.
Stipulated for this fictional case: Decision-relevant values or defensible ranges under the same objective and horizon are available for comparing alternatives.
Stipulated for this fictional case: The decision-maker can assess obligations and resource constraints and has authority for the contemplated allocation.
The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality.
Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization.
Two hours are available. Option A yields zero during its first hour then 100 during its second; B yields one per hour. This known threshold makes local ranking choose B for a total of two instead of the feasible A bundle worth 100. All other baseline stipulations hold.
Condition assessments
Condition ref
Owner ref
Kind
card
Card id
QE48-C01
Condition id
S1
State
satisfied
Basis
The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon.
Stipulated for this fictional case: Feasible increments and their estimated incremental values and resource use are available under a common objective and horizon.
Two hours are available. Option A yields zero during its first hour then 100 during its second; B yields one per hour. This known threshold makes local ranking choose B for a total of two instead of the feasible A bundle worth 100. All other baseline stipulations hold.
The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality.
Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization.
Known Complementarity · outside_recorded_conditions
Two feasible work increments have value only when combined. Their complementarity is fully modeled, but ranking each next increment independently still misses the valuable bundle. All other baseline stipulations hold.
Condition assessments
Condition ref
Owner ref
Kind
card
Card id
QE48-C01
Condition id
S1
State
satisfied
Basis
The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon.
Stipulated for this fictional case: Feasible increments and their estimated incremental values and resource use are available under a common objective and horizon.
Two feasible work increments have value only when combined. Their complementarity is fully modeled, but ranking each next increment independently still misses the valuable bundle. All other baseline stipulations hold.
The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality.
Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization.
Complete assembled Card
Card id
QE48-C01
Title
Opportunity Cost
Card kind
principle
Canonical principle
A scarce-resource commitment has a counterfactual cost: the value of the best feasible alternative it displaces under a specified objective and horizon.
Primary role ref
D1
Status
Provisional
Version
qe-card-pilot-0.1.0
Evidence status
source_reviewed
Shared scope
Conditions
Condition id
S1
Kind
applicability
Statement
A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon.
Review
reviewed
Review note
Bounded authoring review; does not establish editorial acceptance or actual applicability.
Stack roles
Role id
O1
Stack
Ontological
Role type
world_mechanic
Principle type
Structural
Classification
Status
classified
Family ref
QEF-O-SCAR
Taxonomy version
qe-ontology-0.1.4
Reason
The contribution describes competing feasible demands for a limited resource, rather than recommending a winner.
Role summary
Committing scarce resources to a feasible choice displaces alternatives; its opportunity cost is the value of the best feasible displaced alternative under the same objective and horizon.
Compressed role insight
Count the best feasible alternative displaced, not every alternative added together.
Mechanism or logic
Mutually exclusive uses cannot receive the same committed resource at the same time. Comparing the best displaced use identifies a counterfactual value; it is neither an additional invoice nor a sum of incompatible alternatives.
Scope
Shared condition refs
S1
Additional conditions
None recorded
Review
reviewed
Review note
Internal definition compatibility review only; editorial acceptance, case facts and empirical validation remain separate.
Evidence refs
EV1
Role id
D1
Stack
Decision
Role type
decision_implication
Principle type
Procedural
Classification
Status
partial
Family ref
QEF-D-RESOURCE
Taxonomy version
qe-ontology-0.1.4
Reason
Allocating constrained resources among feasible alternatives fits Resource Allocation; no terminal family is justified for the general comparison.
Role summary
Before committing scarce resources, compare feasible alternatives and their displaced value under a stated objective, horizon and constraints; retain material uncertainty and avoid double-counting resource costs.
Compressed role insight
Compare what the choice delivers with what the best feasible alternative could deliver.
Mechanism or logic
An explicit counterfactual makes the cost of exclusion visible. A common objective allows comparison, while scenario ranges prevent uncertain values from masquerading as observed facts.
Scope
Shared condition refs
S1
Additional conditions
Condition id
D-OPTIONS
Kind
applicability
Statement
Feasible alternatives can be specified with their shared resource requirements; include no change when feasible and permitted.
Condition id
D-VALUES
Kind
applicability
Statement
Decision-relevant values or defensible ranges under the same objective and horizon are available for comparing alternatives.
Condition id
D-AUTH
Kind
applicability
Statement
The decision-maker can assess obligations and resource constraints and has authority for the contemplated allocation.
Review
reviewed
Review note
Internal definition compatibility review only; editorial acceptance, case facts and empirical validation remain separate.
Evidence refs
None recorded
Objective
Beneficiary
The responsible resource owner and affected stakeholders
Desired outcome
Select a feasible use justified against its best displaced alternative
Constraints
Respect obligations, safety and the available resource budget.
Keep the objective and horizon consistent across options.
Retain uncertainty and avoid counting a forgone resource value twice.
Failure mode if misapplied
An infeasible alternative, a changed objective or double-counted expense can make a beneficial choice appear wasteful; a numeric score can conceal unassessed obligations.
Action protocol
Trigger conditions
A commitment would exclude another feasible use of a scarce resource.
Steps
Name the resource owner, objective, horizon, constraints and actual decision authority.
List feasible alternatives or bundles, including no change when feasible and permitted, and identify which uses each commitment displaces.
Estimate comparable net outcomes or ranges; state whether resource costs are already included so they are not subtracted again.
Compare the best displaced feasible alternative with the proposed choice. If missing values or conflicting objectives prevent a defensible comparison, keep the result unresolved.
Record the selected option, assumptions and reconsideration threshold; revisit when feasibility, values or objectives change.
Review signals
Signal
A new feasible option, material value revision or changed constraint.
Interpretation
The recorded comparison may no longer describe the relevant choice.
Decision use
Reassess feasibility and the stated objective before relying on the result.
Limitations
This is a comparison procedure, not a universal optimizer or a financial recommendation.
A reported preference does not prove that the selected objective is appropriate.
Role id
D2
Stack
Decision
Role type
decision_implication
Principle type
Procedural
Classification
Status
partial
Family ref
QEF-D-RESOURCE
Taxonomy version
qe-ontology-0.1.4
Reason
A scoped incremental allocation choice remains in Resource Allocation, not a new family or a universal leverage mechanism.
Role summary
For feasible divisible increments sharing one binding resource and a common objective, compare incremental value per unit and recompute after each increment. Stop using this local ranking when indivisibility, complementarities, increasing-return thresholds or interacting constraints require bundle comparison, even when already modeled.
Compressed role insight
Compare feasible next increments; use bundles when increments cannot stand alone.
Mechanism or logic
Marginal values describe the next change, not an option’s average historic return. Updating them avoids fixed rankings after diminishing returns. Without the recorded assumptions, a locally attractive increment can block a better feasible bundle.
Scope
Shared condition refs
S1
Additional conditions
Condition id
D2-INPUT
Kind
applicability
Statement
Feasible increments and their estimated incremental values and resource use are available under a common objective and horizon.
Condition id
D2-RESOURCE
Kind
applicability
Statement
One shared binding resource has a known remaining budget, and useful increments are divisible.
Condition id
D2-INTERACTION
Kind
applicability
Statement
Values have no relevant complementarities or increasing-return thresholds, whether modeled or unmodeled, and there are no other interacting binding constraints.
Condition id
D2-AUTH
Kind
applicability
Statement
The resource owner can assess relevant obligations and has authority for the incremental allocation.
Review
reviewed
Review note
Internal definition compatibility review only; editorial acceptance, case facts and empirical validation remain separate.
Evidence refs
None recorded
Objective
Beneficiary
The resource owner and affected stakeholders
Desired outcome
Choose a useful feasible next increment while retaining the ability to reassess
Constraints
Stay within the resource budget and applicable obligations.
Use a common objective and horizon.
Do not infer global optimality beyond the stated assumptions.
Failure mode if misapplied
A ratio ranking can fund attractive fragments of an indivisible project, miss complementary bundles or known increasing-return thresholds, or exhaust a resource needed by a better overall choice.
Action protocol
Trigger conditions
An incremental resource-allocation choice is being considered within the recorded conditions.
Steps
Check divisibility, one-resource comparability and obligations. Exclude relevant complementarities, increasing-return thresholds and interacting binding constraints even when already modeled; otherwise compare complete feasible bundles using D1 or another suitable method.
Estimate each feasible next increment’s additional value and resource use, retaining uncertainty in the estimates.
Compare incremental ratios only among currently feasible increments. Stop if no positive-value increment is justified.
After an increment, update remaining budget and marginal values. If conditions cease to hold, stop this procedure and compare complete feasible bundles using D1 or another suitable method.
Record assumptions and compare realized results with expectations before repeating.
Review signals
Signal
Any relevant complementarity, increasing-return threshold, or second interacting binding resource, including one already modeled; or changed marginal values.
Interpretation
The recorded comparison may no longer describe the relevant choice.
Decision use
Stop local ranking when an excluded interaction is present and compare feasible bundles; otherwise reassess the recorded conditions and marginal values.
Limitations
This bounded heuristic is QE synthesis, not recovered wording of High-leverage first.
D1 is an alternative comparison when D2 is inapplicable, not an implicitly mandatory prerequisite.
When D1’s objective is accepted, resource displacement makes the best forgone feasible use relevant. The description alone supplies neither the objective nor the values.
Scope
Shared condition refs
S1
Additional conditions
None recorded
Review
reviewed
Review note
Internal definition compatibility review only; editorial acceptance, case facts and empirical validation remain separate.
Evidence refs
None recorded
Bridges
None recorded
Concept relations
None recorded
Source references
SRC-PILOT-OPENSTAX
SRC-PILOT-P48-01
SRC-PILOT-P48-12
Evidence assessments
Assessment id
EV1
Source ref
SRC-PILOT-OPENSTAX
Source location
Section 2.1, The Concept of Opportunity Cost and Marginal Decision-Making and Diminishing Marginal Utility
A choice sacrifices its next best alternative; marginal analysis compares the changes in benefits and costs. The assessment addresses this role summary only; formalization and procedure remain QE synthesis.
Limitations
One inspected conceptual passage is not an empirical validation or an independent replication.
The source does not support all other roles or hypothetical cases on this Card.
Case observations
None recorded
Narrative anchors
None recorded
Interpretation cautions
Value can be nonmonetary; this Card does not choose the objective for the user.
The broader trade-off idea includes non-resource incompatibility and is not identical to opportunity cost.
High-leverage first is represented by a proposed scoped D2 contribution; QE48-C12 is not merged or deleted.
Notes
Pilot authoring under a reserved QE48 identity. Definitions, procedures and examples are QE synthesis, with explicitly limited source assessments. No accepted identity merge or role reuse is inferred.
QUINTESSENTIALS QE · Knowledge & reasoning