Check whether reviewer assignments fit eligibility and capacity

Several drafts can each have a possible reviewer while the complete batch has no workable assignment. Eligibility and capacity must hold together. Use a manual draft-to-reviewer map to expose the conflict before requesting commitments. The fictional exercise below is a paper allocation model, not a Kiguri assignment solver or a change to anyone's tasks.

Write the constraints behind every eligible choice

List the drafts, the expertise each needs, who wrote it, and how much review capacity is available in the round. Make exclusions explicit. For this exercise, authors cannot review their own drafts and each reviewer can take one item. Those are stated toy constraints, not universal requirements for every team.

There are three drafts, D1, D2, and D3, and three possible reviewers, R1, R2, and R3. R1 authored D1; R2 authored D2. A different fictional writer outside this reviewer set authored D3. The required expertise is currently established only for R1 and R2. R3 is available but not established as eligible for these reviews.

Map eligibility without using capacity yet

Under the fictional exclusions, D1 can go only to R2, and D2 only to R1. D3 can go to R1 or R2. Write each link with its reason and preserve the missing links. A third person's availability does not make them a qualified substitute.

At this point every draft has at least one eligible reviewer. That observation is necessary but insufficient. Do not announce a complete plan merely because none of the rows is empty. The next check asks whether the choices compete for the same limited people.

Attempt the complete assignment

Give D1 to R2 and D2 to R1. Both reviewers have now used their one-item capacity. D3 has no remaining eligible reviewer. Trying D3 first does not solve the problem: whichever of R1 or R2 takes it leaves another draft without its required reviewer.

Record the blocking subset: all three drafts depend on only two eligible reviewers, each with capacity one. Three required allocations cannot fit into two available allocations. Keep this simple explanation alongside the attempted assignments so the conflict is understandable without an automated optimization tool.

Change an assumption only with its owner

Possible responses include reducing the batch, arranging a later round, or establishing another appropriately qualified reviewer. Do not fix the diagram by silently doubling capacity or removing the expertise requirement. Ask the responsible people which condition can genuinely change.

In a revised fictional fixture, R3 is explicitly established as eligible for D3 and accepts one-item capacity. Now D1 to R2, D2 to R1, and D3 to R3 satisfies the stated model. Label the new eligibility as a changed assumption; the original batch was not feasible before that change.

Check the allocation and the real commitment separately

For the chosen model assignment, verify every eligibility link, each reviewer's capacity, and that every draft appears exactly once. Retain exclusions and any item still unassigned. Ask another reader to find the blocking subset in the original fixture and explain why the revision removes it.

A feasible paper arrangement does not establish actual access or acceptance of a duty. Make ordinary review requests through the team's established process and confirm those details separately. The useful finish is a complete valid allocation or a precise infeasibility explanation, not a full-looking list built from unsupported assumptions.