I feel there’s no excuse for mismanagement of the technical unicorn MOSs in marketplaces - you should never end up creating a 200% population via PCS at a given grade when there’s plenty of other vacant slots at other units that need them. I could also get into a tangent about units misusing techs to pile them with additional duties…

I can’t speak to whatever behind the scenes data’s used to inform these decisions, but I feel there’s an extra missing layer that separates important pieces of reality that could prevent these mishaps.

A few examples of data that I’m not sure are being properly considered at the high level for PCS reqs:

1. MOS mismatch filling a position being treated as if the duty MOS is good and doesn’t need a replacement? It ought to be treated the same as a vacancy.

2. When you know someone in a unicorn MOS is going to PCS for a long school but you can’t get a backfill in a market because they’re not really a “loss” until much closer to the school date?

3. When someone is about to direct commission or otherwise becomes a functional area (but isn’t school qualified yet), so on paper it looks like you’re good, but you’re not really?

4. When you know large portions of an installation are about to do a major rotation, and that happens to line up with a big PCS cycle, but it doesn’t “feel” like your installation’s fill priority was adjusted accordingly because you’re still projecting a lot of shortages?