target-revenue/history/260730-EffortCalculator-CandidateApplication.md

# Development Effort Calculator Applied to Real Pilot Candidates

**Document status:** Dated execution record, non-normative, append-only
(`workplans/TREV-WP-0010-development-effort-calculator.md` T03).
**Not a Phase declaration.** Updates draft, non-binding
`examples/pilot-candidates/*/manifest.json` figures from hand-picked
illustrative placeholders to calculator-derived ones — nothing here
authorizes a real Phase (`workplans/TREV-WP-0008-governance-and-pilot-rollout.md`
T05 still gates that).

---

## 1. Method

Ran `target_revenue.effort_calculator.calculate_target_basis` (WP-0010-T02)
against each candidate's real local repository, `daily_rate=1000` (EUR,
consistent with the earlier hand-picked drafts and the Licensor's own
jurisdiction), `tokens_in=tokens_out=0` (no `get_token_summary` data was
available for these repos at the time of this run — `approved_direct_costs`
is therefore `0` for all three, not a claim that no AI cost was actually
incurred, just that none is currently on record).

**Scoping decision, made explicit per candidate:** two of the four
candidates repos are the *whole repo's* history (the repo's entire
purpose is the candidate); two are one bounded workplan inside a much
larger, longer-lived repo, and were date-scoped accordingly (`since`/
`until`) — running whole-repo history against a single narrow workplan
would badly overstate that workplan's own effort.

| Candidate | Repo | Scope used | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| `net-kingdom-local-identity` | `net-kingdom` | `2026-03-01` .. `2026-03-06` | `NK-WP-0002` is one bounded workplan; `net-kingdom` has since grown into a much larger, multi-year security platform with dozens of unrelated workplans |
| `railiance-vergabe-teilnahme` | `vergabe-teilnahme` (primary) + `railiance-apps` (secondary, scoped) | whole repo (primary); `2026-05-18` .. `2026-07-12` (secondary) | See §3 — the actual application code lives in `vergabe-teilnahme`, a separate repo from `railiance-apps`, which only holds the Helm/deployment wiring |
| `info-tech-canon-service-surface` | `info-tech-canon` | whole repo | The candidate *is* the repo's cumulative service surface (`ITC-WP-0001`–`0012`); no narrower scope applies |

## 2. `net-kingdom-local-identity`

```json
{
  "estimated_effort_days": 1.0,
  "daily_rate": 1000,
  "approved_direct_costs": 0.0,
  "warnings": [
    "Raw commit-clustered estimate was 0.804 day(s), below the 1.0-day floor. Floored to 1.0 day(s)... very likely a measurement gap... manual override... recommended.",
    "1 finished workplan(s) and 21 finished task(s) on record suggest more real effort than the 0.80-day raw time estimate reflects — treat the time estimate as under-counted and consider a manual override."
  ],
  "derivation": {
    "raw_commit_clustered_hours": 6.435, "sessions": 4, "commits": 19,
    "finished_workplans": 1, "finished_tasks": 21,
    "file_count": 274, "line_count": 44359
  }
}
```

**Both warnings fired.** The raw 0.8-day estimate hit the 1-day floor
(§1's date-scoping correctly isolated `NK-WP-0002`'s own 19 commits across
4 sessions), and the sanity-check independently flagged that 21 finished
tasks across one workplan implies more real effort than 0.8 raw days
suggests. **This is exactly the situation the maintainer's requested
floor-and-warning design exists for**: the manifest below uses the
1.0-day floored value, not a manually-adjusted "better" number — a human
reviewing this candidate before any real Phase declaration should treat
`estimated_effort_days: 1.0` as a flagged, likely-too-low placeholder, not
a settled figure.

**Manifest updated:** `estimated_effort_days: 1.0`, `approved_direct_costs: 0`,
`target_multiple: 10` (unchanged, Incremental) → **Initial Target: 10,000 EUR**
(previously a hand-picked 200,000 EUR — the calculator's own honest,
warning-flagged output is materially lower, not a refinement of the old
guess).

## 3. `railiance-vergabe-teilnahme`

Two repos exist for this candidate, discovered during the earlier
architecture work: `railiance-apps` holds the Helm/deployment wiring;
`vergabe-teilnahme` holds the actual Django application source code.
`RAILIANCE-WP-0002`/`-0014` (the workplans naming this Milestone Release)
live in `railiance-apps`, but the real development effort producing the
application itself happened in `vergabe-teilnahme`.

**Primary figure used — `vergabe-teilnahme`, whole-repo history (no
scoping; the repo's entire purpose is this one application):**

```json
{
  "estimated_effort_days": 6.488,
  "daily_rate": 1000,
  "approved_direct_costs": 0.0,
  "warnings": [],
  "derivation": {
    "raw_commit_clustered_hours": 51.904, "sessions": 42, "commits": 223,
    "finished_workplans": 1, "finished_tasks": 123,
    "file_count": 322, "line_count": 26773
  }
}
```

**Secondary figure, not used in the manifest — `railiance-apps`, date-scoped
to `2026-05-18`..`2026-07-12`:**

```json
{
  "estimated_effort_days": 4.146,
  "derivation": {
    "raw_commit_clustered_hours": 33.168, "sessions": 36, "commits": 127,
    "finished_workplans": 12, "finished_tasks": 71,
    "file_count": 140, "line_count": 11118
  }
}
```

**Judgment call, made explicit rather than silently picked:** this
document uses `vergabe-teilnahme`'s figure as the candidate's
`target_basis`, since that repo is where the substantive product
development happened; `railiance-apps`'s deployment effort (4.146 days)
is real work but comparatively thin infrastructure glue, not the
Milestone Release's own value creation. A different, equally defensible
call would sum or otherwise combine both — flagged here so a human
reviewing this later can see both numbers and the reasoning, not just
the one that was picked.

**Manifest updated:** `estimated_effort_days: 6.488`,
`approved_direct_costs: 0` (the hand-picked draft's `5000` placeholder
removed — no real token-cost or other direct-cost data exists yet),
`target_multiple: 100` (unchanged, Product-defining) → **Initial Target:
648,800 EUR** (previously a hand-picked 3,500,000 EUR).

## 4. `info-tech-canon-service-surface`

```json
{
  "estimated_effort_days": 1.418,
  "daily_rate": 1000,
  "approved_direct_costs": 0.0,
  "warnings": [
    "12 finished workplan(s) and 51 finished task(s) on record suggest more real effort than the 1.42-day raw time estimate reflects — treat the time estimate as under-counted and consider a manual override."
  ],
  "derivation": {
    "raw_commit_clustered_hours": 11.348, "sessions": 12, "commits": 48,
    "finished_workplans": 12, "finished_tasks": 51,
    "file_count": 235, "line_count": 93663
  }
}
```

Above the 1-day floor (no floor warning), but the sanity-check warning
still fired — 12 finished workplans and 51 finished tasks against only
1.42 raw days is a clear under-count signal in its own right, independent
of the floor. Same treatment as `net-kingdom`: the flagged, warning-
carrying value is used as-is, not manually adjusted.

**Manifest updated:** `estimated_effort_days: 1.418`,
`approved_direct_costs: 0`, `target_multiple: 100` (unchanged,
Product-defining) → **Initial Target: 141,800 EUR** (previously a
hand-picked 2,500,000 EUR).

## 5. A bug found and fixed along the way

Applying the calculator to `net-kingdom` surfaced a real defect in
`workplan_task_counts()`: it originally scanned only the top level of
`<repo>/workplans/`, non-recursively — and `NK-WP-0002` lives in
`net-kingdom/workplans/archived/`, a convention several repos in this
ecosystem use for finished workplans instead of deleting them. The
initial scoped run silently reported zero finished workplans/tasks for a
candidate that has exactly one, cleanly finished workplan. Fixed to scan
recursively (`rglob` instead of `glob`); a regression test
(`test_workplan_task_counts_scans_archived_subdirectory`) now guards this.

## 6. Summary table

| Candidate | Old (hand-picked) Initial Target | New (calculator-derived) Initial Target | Warnings fired |
|---|---:|---:|---|
| `net-kingdom-local-identity` | 200,000 EUR | **10,000 EUR** | Floor + sanity-check (both) |
| `railiance-vergabe-teilnahme` | 3,500,000 EUR | **648,800 EUR** | None |
| `info-tech-canon-service-surface` | 2,500,000 EUR | **141,800 EUR** | Sanity-check only |

Every calculator-derived figure is materially lower than the earlier
hand-picked illustrative placeholder — expected, since those placeholders
were invented for shape-checking the schema, not reasoned from any real
measurement. Two of the three carry explicit warnings recommending a
manual override before this could ever inform a real Phase declaration;
the third (`vergabe-teilnahme`) has no warnings, but is itself the
product of a judgment call (§3) about which of two repos to measure.

## 7. Non-goals

- Declaring any real Phase — `workplans/TREV-WP-0008-governance-and-pilot-rollout.md`
  T05 is unaffected by this document.
- Resolving the `railiance-apps`/`vergabe-teilnahme` scoping judgment call
  with finality — flagged, not settled, in §3.
- Sourcing real `get_token_summary` data for these three repos — not
  attempted in this pass; `approved_direct_costs: 0` reflects absence of
  data, not a claim that no AI cost was incurred.