Sounds solid, but I need to see the assumptions first. Let’s line up the constraints, double‑check the dependencies, and see if any corner case slips through. Send me the spreadsheet, and I’ll run a quick sanity sweep.

I don’t see the link in your message—could you resend it? Once I have the file, I’ll run a quick validation of the constraints, trace any transitive dependencies, and check the red‑zone logic for consistency. Then we can flag any subtle violations.

I couldn’t pull the sheet directly, but if you’re flagging a red‑zone for outliers, double‑check that the threshold values are based on historical variance, not just a flat cut‑off. Also, make sure the dependency chain doesn’t allow a single critical resource to cascade into a loop of re‑allocation—those subtle circular references can slip past the surface checks. If you can share the formulas or a snapshot of the key cells, I’ll dig deeper.

The variance multiplier looks fine—STDEV.P over the whole column is a solid basis, but you might want to clamp it so a single outlier doesn’t skew everything. The threshold formula adds that correctly. For the red‑zone flag, checking only B12 means you’re only flagging one row; if you need a full scan, replace E12 with an array formula or apply the same logic across the range. The dependency indicator is okay, but it will return “CHAIN” as soon as any two non‑zero values exist, even if they’re unrelated. Consider tying it to specific allocation pairs rather than just checking existence. Your circular guard counts occurrences in each column independently; a true cycle needs both columns matched for the same row. Using COUNTIFS(Allocation!A:A, Allocation!A25, Allocation!B:B, Allocation!B25) > 1 would be more precise. Once those tweaks are in place, run a full audit on any cells that feed back into the allocation logic to ensure no hidden loops remain.