Minimum order planning: check pack multiples and excess

What does minimum order planning decide in this exercise?

Minimum order planning here finds the smallest quantity that covers an already confirmed requirement while meeting a stated minimum and a whole-pack restriction. It does not decide the requirement, forecast demand or select a supplier. Every value is a fictional teaching input, not an actual purchase proposal approved for execution.

A minimum is the smallest permitted quantity if a positive order is placed. A pack multiple means the quantity must be a whole-number multiple of the units per pack. With five units per pack, possible positive quantities are five, ten, fifteen and so on. Neither condition is claimed to apply to every supplier or every product.

Write the contract: “V1; each row is a separate product and variant; units throughout; positive integer minimum and pack quantity; only whole packs; no additional quantity constraint in this exercise; confirmed zero need means no order.” Do not combine products to satisfy another row’s minimum or assume that similar variants are interchangeable.

The wholesale-supplier guide can help request clear written terms. This worksheet does not negotiate those terms or accept a quote. It compares supplied quantities and creates a reproducible note with a candidate, pack count, excess and one-pack-less witness. A mathematical candidate is not purchasing permission or proof of the lowest total cost.

Keep confirmed need separate from stock and supplier constraints

B1 has a confirmed net requirement of seventeen units, a minimum positive order of ten and five units per pack. B2 needs four units, has a minimum of thirteen and six units per pack. B3 explicitly has zero need, a minimum of twelve and five units per pack. These are independent English examples, not translated values from the Azerbaijani card.

The need column is already the confirmed quantity to be covered. It is not current stock, a sales prediction or an instruction to calculate stock availability. The minimum and the pack size are both expressed in product units, not in packs. Misreading a minimum of thirteen units as thirteen packs would change the problem before any arithmetic starts.

A pack quantity says how many identical units are in one stipulated pack. It does not establish the package’s physical dimensions, protective suitability or shipping approval. The exercise assumes a fixed unit count for the correct variant. An unknown pack quantity must be resolved rather than guessed from the packaging’s appearance.

The fixed-component planning note provides context for keeping original quantities visible. Here no kit is assembled and no component stock is consumed. Preserve source version V1. If a supplier constraint changes, create a new source version and recompute instead of presenting the old answer as confirmation of the new terms.

If one source is expressed in cases and another in units, obtain an explicit conversion before using this simplified card. All inputs here already use units, so no conversion is performed. An absent minimum is not a minimum of zero. Keep that distinction beside the original data, even when inventing a value would make a calculation easier.

If you later prepare a purchase-line receipt note, preserve this source version separately. A candidate quantity does not establish that goods arrived or were accepted. Do not relabel a planning number as an observed delivery.

Cover the larger lower bound, then round up to whole packs

For positive need, compare the need with the minimum and take the larger lower bound. B1 compares seventeen with ten, so the relevant bound is seventeen. Seventeen divided by five gives three whole packs and a remainder. Three packs provide fifteen units, short of the requirement. Move up to four packs: four times five equals twenty.

This is upward rounding to a whole pack, not ordinary rounding to the nearest integer. B1’s 3.4 packs cannot be rounded down to three merely because 3.4 is closer to three than four. The candidate must cover all seventeen units. Four packs meet the need and the minimum, and twenty is divisible by five.

B2 compares need four with minimum thirteen. The larger bound is thirteen. Thirteen divided by six is two whole packs plus a remainder, so use three whole packs, giving eighteen units. The candidate exceeds the requirement by fourteen units: eighteen minus four. It is not evidence that fourteen units have actually entered stock.

B1’s excess is twenty minus seventeen, or three. For each positive row, record three checks: candidate at least need, candidate at least minimum and candidate divisible by pack quantity. Passing only one or two is insufficient. These checks are conditional on the supplied rule, not a reproduction of every feature of a purchasing system.

Show why one fewer pack cannot satisfy the same row

B1’s candidate is twenty units. One fewer five-unit pack leaves fifteen, below the confirmed need of seventeen. Any still smaller pack multiple is also below that need. The witness demonstrates why four packs, rather than three, is the smallest permitted candidate under the stated constraints.

B2’s candidate is eighteen units. One fewer six-unit pack leaves twelve. Twelve covers the need of four but is below the minimum of thirteen. Smaller multiples cannot meet that minimum either. The reason B2 needs another pack is different from B1’s reason; preserve the failing condition rather than writing only “round up.”

Resolve three claims. Reject “meeting the minimum is sufficient,” using B1’s ten units: ten meets the minimum but not the need of seventeen. Reject “covering the requirement is sufficient,” using B2’s six units: six covers four but misses the minimum thirteen. Mark “the smallest permitted quantity is the cheapest purchase” unsupported, because prices and other costs were not calculated.

The low-stock alert guide involves a trigger and a responsible recipient. Neither is chosen here. An excess of fourteen is not an instruction to buy it. Storage, budget, supplier agreement and purchasing authority have not been investigated. The output is a quantity-evidence note, not an optimal inventory strategy.

Separate explicit zero need from unknown constraints

B3 explicitly has zero confirmed need. The teaching contract says no order in that case, so the candidate is zero packs and zero units. Its minimum of twelve does not force a purchase merely to satisfy a condition that applies only when placing a positive order. The one-pack-less test is not applicable to a no-order row.

Now create B4: confirmed need seven units, four units per pack, minimum unknown. Two packs cover seven, but eight units is not a resolved candidate because the unknown minimum might exceed eight. Preserve the open question: “What is the positive-order minimum for this exact product and variant?” Do not turn the missing minimum into zero.

Unknown need is also different from explicitly confirmed zero. If need, minimum, pack quantity or unit meaning is missing, preserve the gap and ask the source owner. A zero or fractional pack quantity is outside this simplified positive-integer rule. Do not divide by zero or improvise a different conversion while retaining the same approval label.

Microsoft’s Business Central documentation describes minimum-order and order-multiple adjustments within particular planning policies. It also describes exceptions, so this manual worksheet does not simulate the whole system. Odoo’s retained documentation describes product-specific packaging quantities and reference units, but does not require whole packs universally. Our whole-pack restriction is an explicit teaching input, not a universal software policy.

Save one named quantity note and verify it after reopening

On Windows, open Start, type Notepad and launch the editor. Create a new blank document headed “Minimum order V1.” Copy the contract and the three original input rows. For B1 and B2, record the larger lower bound, division, upward whole-pack count, candidate quantity and excess over confirmed need.

Add the three feasibility checks and each one-pack-less witness with the exact failed condition. Preserve B3 as no order. Include all three claim decisions and their evidence, plus the B4 unknown-minimum question. Write: “Conditional quantity arithmetic only; no purchase, reservation or system update has been performed.”

Press Ctrl+S, choose Documents, enter minimum-order-V1.txt as the file name and select Save. Close the editor. Open Documents in File Explorer and double-click minimum-order-V1.txt to reopen the named file. Check B1’s twenty units and excess three, B2’s eighteen and excess fourteen, B3’s zero and B4’s unresolved question.

A suggested fifteen-minute allowance gives three minutes to source scope, five to arithmetic, four to controls and three to saving and reopening. This is a cognitive plan, not a measured participant trial. In earlier public writing about perfection and effectiveness, I described delaying work over details. Here the application is finishing a checkable note, not inventing a purchasing result. The artificial intelligence guide supplies broader tool context, but the card can be completed manually without any model execution.