The assignments are accepted. Maya will review report A, Eli will review B, and Tomas will review C from 11 to noon. Priya will attend her customer meeting at 11. Article 6 defined owners, deadlines, and the evidence needed to confirm completion.
At 10:30, Tomas confirms a change: he can now review only from 11:30 to 12:30. Each review still requires one uninterrupted hour, and all three reports still need review by noon. His new window would put C's completion thirty minutes late. The selected arrangement no longer satisfies the deadline.
A relationship map shows Tomas now available from 11:30 to 12:30 and retains his cancelled connection to Review C with a cross. Priya is assigned Review C and the customer meeting, which moves to 2–3 pm. The matching schedule compares three one-hour reviews of C: the earlier Tomas plan from 11 am to noon, the updated Tomas interval from 11:30 am to 12:30 pm finishing 30 minutes late, and the revised Priya plan from 11 am to noon. A dashed noon line marks the deadline; the revised assignments follow the confirmations described in the article.
Follow the dependency: the selected review of C requires Tomas from 11 to noon. That condition has changed. The crossed connection records the cancelled assignment; the revised time bar follows Priya's new connection. A and B retain their planned reviewers and times, and the revised arrangement still needs every requirement checked.
The earlier Priya option becomes worth reconsidering. Her qualifications and independence remain established, but her meeting is currently scheduled for 11. Assigning C to her requires confirming that she can take the review and that the meeting can still move to 2. The earlier confirmation gives us a starting point for that check.
In this example, the coordinator confirms both with Priya and the meeting participants. Tomas also confirms that his booking can be cancelled without a charge. The manager accepts moving the meeting, and Priya accepts C's review from 11 to noon. With drafts still due at 11, all three reviews again fit the requirements.
The coordinator cancels Tomas's assignment, updates Priya's responsibilities, and sends the revised meeting time. Tomas's assignment is marked cancelled; Priya's review is accepted and pending. The revised schedule becomes the current plan. Review records will still be needed to establish that the work actually finished on time.
Keep the earlier arrangement and the 10:30 update in the decision history. Record what changed, which requirement it broke, who confirmed the replacement conditions, and who accepted the new tradeoff. The original preference to preserve the meeting remains understandable even though the available options changed.
If Priya had not confirmed, her arrangement would remain a candidate awaiting confirmation. Silence would establish neither availability nor impossibility. If no candidate can meet the requirements, return to the changes discussed in Article 4: additional capacity, an approved deadline change, or reduced scope.
When a fact changes, ask which choices depended on it, which alternatives still qualify, and which commitments must change. Check the revised arrangement before treating it as the plan everyone should follow.