Orchestrator-workers on Share two short deliveries out among backorders

Dock and monitor backorders after PO-88 and PO-89

The work was done, but the report's own numbers don't agree, so I can't confirm it is exact. The lists below come from one worker's report, and I had no way to check them against the system.

Allocated (as listed by the worker)

All 11 docks and all 7 monitors were allocated. Stock on hand for both products is now 0.

• Docks: O-5201 (2), O-5202 line 2 (1), O-5204 (2), O-5207 line 1 (1), O-5209 (2), O-5210 (1), O-5211 (1), O-5215 (1)
• Monitors: O-5202 line 1 (1), O-5203 (2), O-5207 line 2 (1), O-5208 (2), O-5212 (1)
• O-5207 must ship complete. Both of its lines could be filled at once, so it was allocated in full.

Still waiting, with promise dates

Not touched

O-5205 is on risk hold. It got no stock, no promise date and no message. It needs working once the hold is lifted.

Customers told

The worker says 14 customers were each notified once. Allocated orders were told their items will ship shortly. O-5206, O-5213 and O-5214 were given their expected dates.

Problems to check

1. The counts don't match. The worker says 12 orders and 17 lines were allocated. The lists above contain only 11 orders and 13 lines. The unit totals (11 docks, 7 monitors) do add up. Fourteen notifications fits 11 allocated orders plus 3 waiting ones, not 12 plus 3. Either the summary figures are wrong or some allocations are missing from the list. Someone should compare the actual allocations and notifications against the system.
2. The worker also allocated two more deliveries. The task covered only PO-88 and PO-89. Two more deliveries were received during the work: PO-91 (4 docks) and PO-93 (3 monitors). The worker says it allocated that stock "by hand" in the same priority order. It says the result is the same as if all the stock had arrived together. That is reasonable, since the stock had arrived and the same rules apply. Still, it goes beyond the request, and it isn't clear the allocations went through the normal process.
3. The priority order depends on which date counts as "now." The worker applied policy update PU-12, which puts orders placed on or before 2026-07-11 first, oldest first. It counted from the order system's date of 2026-07-25 rather than today's date, 2026-10-06. Measured from today, every order would be 14 or more days old, and the priority order might come out differently. The worker ignored PU-9, which ranked gold with platinum, because it applied only in June 2026. The report doesn't quote PU-12's actual text, so I can't confirm it was read correctly.
4. O-5206 depends on two deliveries: hubs on PO-90 and docks on PO-95. A delay to either pushes back the whole order.