Separate Dominated Project Scenarios from Genuine Budget Tradeoffs — Free
A weighted score can hide a project that is worse on every stated dimension. Expose dominance first, preserve real tradeoffs, and leave public-value judgments with the community.
The proof surface
A policy question map does not identify mathematically dominated project scenarios under a supplied budget without hiding tradeoffs inside weighted scores.
Rare deviceA policy question map does not identify mathematically dominated project scenarios under a supplied budget without hiding tradeoffs inside weighted scores.
Output artifactEligible non-dominated scenario count plus complete labeled working
Cost$0 local core · no account, card, paid key or subscription · filing proposal has no checkout
Sample, not your facts: Invented records: Maple project | 3000 | 40 | 6; Oak project | 3500 | 35 | 7; Pine project | 4500 | 70 | 8; Birch project | 5500 | 90 | 5. Scenario budget ceiling ($) = 5000; expected Eligible non-dominated scenario count: 2 non-dominated eligible scenarios. These are not quotations, verified observations or personal evidence.
Before using the dominance review clipboard
This clipboard compares supplied scenarios under three explicitly chosen directions: lower cost, higher assumed benefit points and shorter duration. It filters by a supplied budget before checking dominance. Benefit points are your common ordered scale, not a value measured or endorsed by the tool. Dominance means another eligible scenario is at least as good on all three numbers and strictly better on at least one. Non-dominated does not mean best, fair, feasible or approved. The model excludes qualitative access, distributional impact, uncertainty, maintenance and legal constraints. Those omissions must be reviewed by responsible organizers before any real civic choice.
Why the flat version breaks
One score erases dimension-level losses
Weighting may be appropriate for a separately agreed decision process, but it can obscure a scenario that is worse on all supplied dimensions. This clipboard has no weights and no composite winner. It shows strict dominance and leaves genuine tradeoffs unresolved. A frontier with several scenarios is useful information, not a failure to rank them.
Equal profiles are pruned as duplicates
Distinct projects can have the same cost, point score and duration while differing in unentered details. Removing one would convert numerical equality into a decision without evidence. Equality is explicitly noted, and both scenarios remain. The unique project-code requirement protects row identity, not a claim that the entered dimensions fully distinguish real proposals.
Excluded criteria are treated as irrelevant
A public decision can depend on accessibility, maintenance, uncertainty and who benefits, even if this arithmetic has no fields for them. Non-dominated therefore is not approved. Review omissions with the responsible committee and qualified advisers, and revise the source model if directions or scores are inappropriate. This tool does not verify costs, lawful authority or community consent.
How to work the dominance review clipboard
Use comparable scenario definitions
Give each project a neutral unique code and enter costs with at most two decimals, benefit points and duration weeks. Confirm that the benefit scale means the same thing across rows and that shorter duration is genuinely preferred for this comparison. Negative inputs are rejected; zero is allowed only as an explicit supplied scenario. A vague “benefit” number cannot be made authoritative by a polished frontier diagram. Keep the underlying scoring rationale and assumptions outside the calculator.
Apply the budget ceiling without hiding rows
The shared setting is a scenario dollar cap, not a verified grant or appropriation. A cost equal to the cap is eligible. Over-cap projects remain in the result with their exclusion reason, so a reader can distinguish budget filtering from dominance. An eligible set can be empty; in that case the tool reports zero frontier scenarios and asks you to review the budget or evidence rather than naming an impossible winner.
Compare each eligible pair on all dimensions
For each candidate, find all other eligible candidates with cost no higher, benefit no lower and duration no longer. Require at least one strict improvement before calling it dominated. Identical numeric profiles are not dominance and remain separately visible. List the dominating counterpart codes next to a marked project; do not hide the comparison inside a total score. The headline is the size of the eligible non-dominated set, not the sum of benefit points or an expected return.
Use the frontier as a question list, not a decision
Inspect tradeoffs among remaining scenarios and ask which missing dimensions could change the comparison. A cheaper, quicker option may have unentered access or equity costs. Have the responsible committee review original proposals, uncertainty and governing rules. Copy the result with its assumptions and boundary. The optional filing prototype preserves all project rows, including exclusions and equals; it does not produce a hidden policy recommendation or certify a community mandate.
What the dominance review clipboard keeps distinct
Question
Before
Check this working
One score erases dimension-level losses
Weighting may be appropriate for a separately agreed decision process, but it can obscure a scenario that is worse on all supplied dimensions. This clipboard has no weights and no composite winner. It shows strict dominance and leaves genuine tradeoffs unresolved. A frontier with several scenarios is useful information, not a failure to rank them.
Apply the budget ceiling without hiding rows
Equal profiles are pruned as duplicates
Distinct projects can have the same cost, point score and duration while differing in unentered details. Removing one would convert numerical equality into a decision without evidence. Equality is explicitly noted, and both scenarios remain. The unique project-code requirement protects row identity, not a claim that the entered dimensions fully distinguish real proposals.
Compare each eligible pair on all dimensions
Excluded criteria are treated as irrelevant
A public decision can depend on accessibility, maintenance, uncertainty and who benefits, even if this arithmetic has no fields for them. Non-dominated therefore is not approved. Review omissions with the responsible committee and qualified advisers, and revise the source model if directions or scores are inappropriate. This tool does not verify costs, lawful authority or community consent.
Use the frontier as a question list, not a decision
The dominance review clipboard replaces this named manual reconciliation, not source verification or the responsible human's decision.
Run it on the samples, right here
FIRST-LOAD
HYPOTHESIS / PROTOTYPE — checkout unavailable. Calculation is local. A draft is saved automatically in this browser profile when storage is available; Reset to sample clears it. Optional Pro history stores only five summaries and has its own deletion control. State links encode your inputs and can remain in browser history, clipboard or recipients’ records; share only non-sensitive rows. Optional external AI formatting leaves this device. The required site analytics beacon reports page activity; shared URLs contain encoded inputs. Do not treat an encoded URL as private. The calculator has no input-collection endpoint.
Scenario comparison only: no policy endorsement, legal advice, verified public-benefit score or project approval. Review source evidence, omitted equity/access factors and governing rules with the responsible committee and qualified advisers before acting.
Data note: This dominance review clipboard calculates in the tab from Project code | cost dollars | assumed benefit points | duration weeks. No input-collection endpoint, AI request or file upload is built into it. Drafts may be saved locally; explicit input-state links and optional external formatting can disclose the records. Use non-sensitive codes and clear the draft when finished.
Go deeper: the companion app files the same reading as a triage clipboard with three lanes
The article demo above runs without limits. The companion app keeps a local history, exports the rows as CSV, prints the dominance review clipboard reading, and holds your drafts on this device — one complete free app run; the proposed $4 one-time filing layer is not for sale.
Keep the complete dominance review clipboard answer free; optional filing proposes its boundary-preserving print, row-and-summary CSV and five local reading summaries. The $4 one-time prototype is not for sale; another calculation remains free in the article demo.
Scenario comparison only: no policy endorsement, legal advice, verified public-benefit score or project approval. Review source evidence, omitted equity/access factors and governing rules with the responsible committee and qualified advisers before acting.
What this is built on
Declared local method: For each candidate, find all other eligible candidates with cost no higher, benefit no lower and duration no longer. Require at least one strict improvement before calling it dominated. Identical numeric profiles are not dominance and remain separately visible. List the dominating counterpart codes next to a marked project; do not hide the comparison inside a total score. The headline is the size of the eligible non-dominated set, not the sum of benefit points or an expected return.
Every sample code, measurement, date, price, fingerprint and scenario is invented. Artifact checks do not verify reader data, policies, actual files, tickets, votes or health/accessibility outcomes.
Google’s official Gemini pricing page, fetched 2026-10-01, lists AI Studio access in its Free section, limited model access and free input/output tokens. Free-tier content may be used to improve products. Optional external formatting may require an account; limits/access can change. Manual local entry needs none. Do not send sensitive records.
Before: a single score concealed every-dimension losses. After: strict dominance, equal profiles and unresolved tradeoffs remain separate without a fabricated winner.
Birch is outside the entered 5,000 budget and is kept visible but excluded from the frontier. Maple is no more costly, no slower and has at least as many benefit points as Oak, with strict improvements, so Oak is dominated. Maple and Pine trade cheaper/faster against more assumed benefit. Both remain non-dominated. The count of two is not a recommended shortlist or a verified public-benefit ranking.
All three are eligible, and Harbor is cheaper, quicker and has more assumed benefit than either alternative. Only Harbor is non-dominated on these supplied dimensions. That narrow mathematical result says nothing about unentered equity, access, maintenance, community consent, uncertainty or legal feasibility. If those differ materially, the apparent dominance may not describe the actual decision.
Sample C — boundary convention
Equal East project | 2200 | 30 | 4
Equal West project | 2200 | 30 | 4
Two numerically equal scenarios have no strict improvement over each other. Both remain on the non-dominated set, with an equal-profile note. The tool does not delete one by input order or pretend one is preferable. Equality of three entered numbers is not equality of projects in the world; a public decision needs the responsible group’s evidence and criteria.
Optional AI formatting, never the calculation
Manual entry completes this dominance review clipboard for free without signup. If available to you, the free AI Studio interface linked in the sources may format fictional or non-sensitive notes; external access may require an account. No API key or AI call is built into this tool. Free-tier content may be used to improve products. Review each cell and transcribe it to the labeled row schema; do not paste the JSON object into the row box.
Format only these fictional or non-sensitive notes for a dominance review clipboard. Return strict JSON shaped as {"rows": [{"label": "string", "cells": ["string", "string", "string"]}], "setting": "string"}. The columns are Project code | cost dollars | assumed benefit points | duration weeks; the setting is Scenario budget ceiling ($). Keep all supplied strings and quantities exactly; do not calculate, infer missing entries, invent dates or add advice. If any required value is missing, return an empty rows array and ask me for it separately. I will verify every cell against my source and manually transcribe rows using vertical bars before running the local calculator.
An AI response is not executed, fetched or trusted as a result. Missing values remain questions; the strict local parser checks the rows you actually enter.