Does the shared allocation have room?
Count active reservations for the same exposure cluster.
The question
You check an internal allocation ledger for a fictional insurer. Only the portfolio owner can change an allocation.
| Internal units | |
|---|---|
| Cluster cap | 20 |
| Active reservation A | 8 |
| Active reservation B | 7 |
| Requested addition | 4 |
The values are invented internal allocation units. The requested addition is not yet reserved.
“What room is available, and what could change your answer?”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: What is already committed?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Add the two active reservations
The strong move. 8 + 7 gives 15, leaving five units under the cap.
Count the requested four as already reserved
Tempting, but it misses something. The ledger shows a request, not an active reservation.
Compare the request only with the cap
Tempting, but it misses something. The active reservations already use part of the allocation.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The active reservations total 15. The cap is 20, so five units are still unallocated.”
Why it works: The requested four units are separate from the active reservations.
Step 2: How much would remain?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Say there will still be five units free
Tempting, but it misses something. The proposal would use four of the five available units.
Tell the broker all four units are approved
Tempting, but it misses something. The candidate checks the ledger. The owner decides.
Report the proposed total as 19 with one unit left
The strong move. This keeps the requested addition distinct from current reservations.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The requested four would take the total to 19 and leave one unit if the owner approves it.”
Why it works: The check describes the effect on the ledger. The owner still controls the allocation.
Step 3: What changes in the ledger?
The owner confirms a 3-unit active reservation under a site alias belongs to this same cluster. It is absent from the opening total.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Leave the reservation out because it has another label
Tempting, but it misses something. The owner confirmed that the alias points to the same cluster.
Count the alias in the same cluster and flag the gap
The strong move. The revised ledger has two free units for a request of four.
Reserve two units without asking
Tempting, but it misses something. The cap check does not authorize changing the proposed amount.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The active total rises to 18. The request would take it to 22, which is two above the cap. I’ll flag the corrected ledger to the owner.”
Why it works: The new reservation shares the cluster. The different site label does not create a separate pool.
Step 4: What does the owner need?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Give the owner the revised total, gap and evidence
The strong move. The owner can make the allocation decision with the corrected ledger.
Give only the new reservation value
Tempting, but it misses something. The owner would still need to reconcile the cluster and request.
Suggest splitting the request across aliases
Tempting, but it misses something. Those labels refer to the same allocation and do not add capacity.
See how a strong candidate says it
“We have 18 units committed. All four requested units would bring us to 22 against the cap of 20. I’ve linked the alias confirmation. Please review the two-unit gap.”
Why it works: The owner can see the current commitment, the proposed total and the record that changed it.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Flag the four-unit request to the portfolio owner.
- Because
- The corrected ledger leaves two units available. All four would exceed the cap by two.
- What would change it
- If the owner confirms a different allocation, record it before reporting what is available.
Common traps
- Treating a request as an active reservation
- Treating an alias as a different allocation
Check your answer
- Which reservations are active?
- Which identifiers share the cluster?
- What is the gap after the change?
- Who can change the allocation?
Last reviewed Nov 11, 2026