GratisAIlearning · field guide · local-first · no account
project-share balance board

Compare Planned Group Hours With Each Member’s Target Share — Free

A group can split the visible tasks evenly and still miss the workload split it agreed. Compare each member’s planned hours as a share of total hours with the target percentage the group chose.

The proof surface

Skill-hour allocation tools divide practice across skills. This board checks whether named task-hour estimates line up with a group’s own agreed contribution shares, not with an external fairness standard.

Inputmember alias | planned task hours | target share percent; largest acceptable share deviation in percentage points
Rare deviceSkill-hour allocation tools divide practice across skills. This board checks whether named task-hour estimates line up with a group’s own agreed contribution shares, not with an external fairness standard.
Output artifactpercentage points per row with transparent workings
Cost$0 · local-first · one free run · samples labelled
Sample, not your facts: Illustrative sample: A | 20 | 40; B | 30 | 60. With largest acceptable share deviation in percentage points set to 5, largest share deviation is 0 percentage points.

Why the flat version breaks

Entering share fractions as percents

Use 40 for forty percent, not 0.4.

Making target shares total something other than 100

The instrument checks this because otherwise the planned split is internally incomplete.

Calling equal hours fair by definition

Different constraints and task types can make equal hours a poor agreement.

How to work the project-share balance board

Use aliases rather than personal details

Give each contributor a neutral label and estimate only the project hours assigned in this plan.

Enter the share the group agreed

Target shares across rows must total 100 percent. Use the agreed split, not a share inferred from a person’s identity or ability.

Compare actual and intended shares

Actual share = member hours ÷ all planned member hours × 100. The board reports the absolute difference in percentage points for each row.

Discuss the largest deviation together

The setting is a tolerance the group chooses. Change tasks by consent; the calculator cannot judge invisible work, accessibility needs or the value of a contribution.

What the project-share balance board replaces

QuestionBeforeVisible working
Entering share fractions as percentsUse 40 for forty percent, not 0.4.Enter the share the group agreed
Making target shares total something other than 100The instrument checks this because otherwise the planned split is internally incomplete.Compare actual and intended shares
Calling equal hours fair by definitionDifferent constraints and task types can make equal hours a poor agreement.Discuss the largest deviation together

A local arithmetic aid replaces hand calculation, not expert review. No paid AI service is needed.

Run it on the samples, right here

FIRST-LOAD

Input is processed locally and a draft is saved automatically in this browser profile when storage is available. Reset to sample clears that draft; Pro history has its own clear button. A state link encodes your inputs in its URL: share only non-sensitive rows. Browser history, clipboard and anyone receiving the link may retain it. Optional AI use below leaves this device; it is not required.

Planning arithmetic only, not grading, conflict mediation, disability assessment or a judgement of individual effort. Agree the target shares with the group and involve the instructor if a contribution dispute affects assessment. It cannot establish whether a contribution agreement is fair or complete.

Data note: Everything runs in this browser tab on the project-share balance board: your member alias | planned task hours | target share percent stays on this device, nothing is uploaded, and the reading is rebuilt only when you press run.

Go deeper: the companion app files the same reading as a scored comparison matrix

The article demo above runs without limits. The companion app keeps a local history, exports the rows as CSV, prints the project-share balance board reading, and holds your drafts on this device — one free run, then $ 4 one-time for the layer that keeps filing.

The project-share balance board reading is complete for free. The optional $4 layer adds print, row CSV and the last five local reading summaries; it does not add hidden answers. Checkout is not configured yet; the article demo remains unlimited.

Open the compare planned group hours with each member’s target share companion

Boundary

Planning arithmetic only, not grading, conflict mediation, disability assessment or a judgement of individual effort. Agree the target shares with the group and involve the instructor if a contribution dispute affects assessment. It cannot establish whether a contribution agreement is fair or complete.

What this is built on

Before: Use 40 for forty percent, not 0.4. After: the project-share balance board shows the working beside each named row so the reader can change the assumption and inspect the consequence.

Optional AI formatting, not calculation

For this project-share balance board, an external AI text tool may help format non-sensitive notes if you already use one. No AI service or account is required: manual entry completes the same free core calculation. Do not paste private or sensitive data. Review every value against the source before using it.

Format my non-sensitive notes for a project-share balance board. Return plain rows only: member alias | planned task hours | target share percent. Preserve supplied quantities exactly. Do not guess missing values; list questions separately. Do not calculate or add advice. I will check every row before pasting into the local tool.

Accepted schema: member alias | planned task hours | target share percent. No AI response is executed as code.

Walk three labelled examples

First reading. The invented sample A | 20 | 40 B | 30 | 60 uses largest acceptable share deviation in percentage points = 5. The displayed largest share deviation is 0.00000 percentage points. Follow the row note back to the measurements and conversion rather than treating the headline number as a recommendation. The sample is deliberately concrete so the reader can reproduce the arithmetic by hand.

Changed assumption. The alternate input A | 25 | 50 B | 25 | 50 produces 0.00000 percentage points for the displayed summary. Compare it with the first reading to see which entered quantity moves the result. In a real plan, change only the assumption that has a traceable source; do not tune a value just to make a row pass.

Boundary case. With A | 50 | 55 B | 50 | 45 and the same setting, the worked result is 5.00000 percentage points. This case shows how the arithmetic behaves at a useful edge, not that the underlying process has been measured or verified. Check the boundary statement beside the result and confirm any consequential input with the responsible person before acting.