And not the way I'd like to be (I can't help it) .... My final exam is in four days. I've been trying to study, and by trying, I mean carrying my binder of shit around as if I'm really going to open it. I studied today at lunch though, which was moving along nicely. Read and understood at the same damn time. Until I came to this part in module 4.8:
Following the allocation of the source points, the rule-based approach would follow the direction of flow in the network diagram to the next point where the flow would combine with another stream or would diverge to two or more streams. In the case where flow combines, the values from each of the feeding streams would be accumulated for use at the next downstream point in the network diagram. If this subsequent point is one where the streams diverge, then each diverging stream would have a “rule” indicating which source owner values are on this diverging stream along with the calculation order of the rule. An additional or secondary rule will be required on each of these diverging streams if the allocation rile does not assign ownership proportionate to the available owner values. This additional rule indicates which source owner values will be allocated to the diverging stream if one of the owners or source owners does not have sufficient values to match the value of the diverging stream. In this situation, one or more of the source owners will make up the shortfall associated with the first allocation rule. These “make up” volumes can be either sold to the owner who is short or they can be “contributed” to the stream by the appropriate source owner.
Then a few more sentences down, I read this:
This keeps unnecessary complexity out of the allocation logic and reduces the chance of error and disputes.
And this is what I get when I google "diverging streams" (which, by the way does not auto-fill when typing which means WTF a lot) ....