Quiz: The Guest List

Target: 70% or higher. Several questions require arithmetic. Do it.

Section 1: Multiple Choice (1 point each)

1. Wedding costs decompose into how many categories with respect to guest count?

  • A) Two — per-person and flat
  • B) Three — fully variable, step-function, and fixed
  • C) Four — variable, semi-variable, fixed, and contingent
  • D) One — everything scales with headcount eventually
Answer **B) Three.** *Why B:* The two-category model is the common one and it misses the category where the useful savings hide. Steps are flat until a threshold, then jump. *Reference:* §5.2

2. In the worked $42,000 budget, what share of the total responds to guest count?

  • A) About 35%
  • B) About 46%
  • C) About 62%
  • D) About 85%
Answer **C) About 62%** — 46% fully variable plus 16% step-function. *Why C:* This is the number to put in front of a client who says the list is fixed. The remaining 38% — photography, music, venue fee, attire, planner — does not care how many people attend. *Reference:* §5.2

3. In the worked example, the marginal cost of the 141st guest is $160 but the average cost per guest is $300. The difference is because:

  • A) The caterer discounts at volume
  • B) The average includes fixed costs that do not respond to the 141st guest
  • C) The 141st guest eats less
  • D) Service charges are calculated on the total, not per head
Answer **B) The average includes fixed costs.** *Why B:* The photographer and the band are in the $300 and neither notices guest 141. Using the average to decide whether to add guests overstates the cost by nearly double — and using a caterer's per-head figure alone *understates* it, because it omits bar, place setting, chair, stationery, and cake. *Reference:* §5.3

4. Why does the chapter say the step map is more useful to a client than a per-head figure?

  • A) It is easier to understand
  • B) It lets you answer "what does one more cost?" accurately in fifteen seconds, and the answer varies enormously
  • C) Caterers prefer it
  • D) It reduces the total budget
Answer **B).** *Why B:* Eight more guests might cost $1,430; ten more might cost $2,550, because the tenth crosses a restroom bracket and a shuttle. "Add eight, and if there's any chance it becomes ten, add none" is a genuinely useful answer no client has received before. *Reference:* §5.3

5. The Owner column in the list architecture exists to:

  • A) Track who addressed each invitation
  • B) Make cuts allocable, so the conversation is arithmetic rather than an argument about who loves whom more
  • C) Assign seating
  • D) Satisfy the caterer's guarantee requirements
Answer **B).** *Why B:* Without it, "we need to cut twenty-six" is an undifferentiated demand that lands on whoever is least willing to fight. Fairness is what makes a cut survivable. *Reference:* §5.4

6. Giving a contributing parent a fixed allocation of names works because:

  • A) It is cheaper than the alternative
  • B) It converts an open-ended entitlement into a bounded, ownable resource
  • C) It removes them from the decision entirely
  • D) It matches the contribution proportionally
Answer **B).** *Why B:* "Fifteen names, yours to choose" produces completely different behavior from "let us know if there's anyone." Same mechanism as Chapter 3's contributor role menu: people want evidence their contribution mattered, delivered as something bounded and specific. *Reference:* §5.4

7. Which plus-one policy does the chapter say to avoid entirely?

  • A) Nobody gets one
  • B) Everyone gets one
  • C) Case by case
  • D) Wedding party only
Answer **C) Case by case.** *Why C:* It guarantees inconsistency, and inconsistency is what guests actually object to. Any policy applied consistently is defensible; no policy applied inconsistently is. *Why not A:* Hard to hold and produces complaints, but it is at least a rule. *Reference:* §5.5

8. Which guest category is most commonly over-estimated in attendance forecasting?

  • A) Immediate family
  • B) Long-haul social friends
  • C) Coworkers
  • D) Parents' friends
Answer **B) Long-haul social friends** — 35–55%. *Why B:* Couples form their intuition from their closest relationships, where the rate genuinely is high, then apply it to a large category where it is not. *Why not D:* Parents' friends often attend at *higher* rates than the couple expects — the error there runs the other way. *Reference:* §5.6

9. Under-forecasting is worse than over-forecasting because:

  • A) Caterers charge penalties for it
  • B) Its failures — insufficient seating, food, and bar — are visible to every guest
  • C) It violates the venue contract
  • D) It is harder to correct
Answer **B) Its failures are publicly visible.** *Why B:* Over-forecasting wastes money invisibly. Under-forecasting fails in front of everyone. Every industry convention — caterers cooking 3–5% over, guarantees as floors, the extra table — biases accordingly. *Reference:* §5.6

10. The A/B list is ethically defensible provided that:

  • A) The couple discloses it to guests
  • B) The second wave lands more than about three weeks out and the tiers never leak
  • C) It is used only for extended family
  • D) The B-list is smaller than the A-list
Answer **B).** *Why B:* A B-list invitation six weeks out is indistinguishable from an A-list one. Eleven days out, it is obvious. The practice is fine; the timing is what makes it fine or not — plus three absolute rules about labeling, group chats, and the cutoff. *Reference:* §5.7

11. The guaranteed count should be set at:

  • A) The invitation count
  • B) The forecast attendance
  • C) The confirmed yes count plus 2–3%
  • D) The venue's capacity
Answer **C) Confirmed yes plus 2–3%.** *Why C:* It covers late additions and the guest who brings someone they should not have. Below it you risk a guest without a meal — a visible failure. Above it you pay $85 a head for empty chairs. *Why not A:* You would be paying for people who told you they were not coming. *Reference:* §5.8

12. The RSVP deadline should be set:

  • A) Two weeks before the guarantee is due
  • B) About five weeks before the wedding, when the guarantee is due at 10–14 days
  • C) The same day as the guarantee
  • D) Eight weeks before the wedding
Answer **B).** *Why B:* Roughly 15–25% will not respond by the stated date. The gap between the deadline and the guarantee is your chase window, and you need all of it for two passes — both run by the couple, not by you. *Reference:* §5.8

Section 2: True/False with Justification (1 point each)

13. Cutting one guest always saves money.

Answer **True in the fully variable sense, and misleadingly so.** Every cut saves the fully variable component — food, bar, place setting, chair, favor — which is real. But cutting *one* guest between step thresholds saves ~$160, while cutting *six* at the right point might save $1,780. The important claim is not that cuts save money; it is that **the saving per name is wildly non-uniform**, and a planner who does not know where the steps are will ask a client to cut far more names than necessary.

14. A couple who refuses to cut the guest list is making an unreasonable decision.

Answer **False.** For many couples the guest list *is* the wedding — it is what the day is for. Choosing 180 people and a simpler event is entirely legitimate, and frequently the right call. What is not acceptable is that choice being made by default, without anyone stating what it costs in specific dollars. The planner's job is to make sure the question is asked out loud, not to answer it.

15. The average cost per guest is a useful figure for budgeting.

Answer **Mostly false.** It is useful for one thing only: describing a completed wedding retrospectively. For any *decision* it is wrong in both directions — it overstates the cost of adding a guest because it includes fixed costs, and it hides every step. Never use it to answer "what would eight more cost?"

16. If a guest has not responded by the guarantee deadline, count them as attending to be safe.

Answer **False.** Count them as not attending — and tell the couple this is the policy *in advance*, so it is a rule rather than a surprise. Counting non-responders as attending means paying $160 a head for people who have twice declined to confirm, and in a wedding with 25 non-responders that is $4,000 of empty chairs. The safety margin lives in the 2–3% buffer on the confirmed count, not in optimism about silence.

17. Refusing to use an A/B list means everyone the couple wants gets invited.

Answer **False.** It means the ranking happens earlier, silently, and with fewer people invited overall — because the couple must cut to their affordable number before sending anything. The A/B list does not create the ranking; the budget does. It just lets more people receive a real invitation.

Section 3: Short Answer (2 points each)

18. A couple is at 156 guests and $3,100 over. Catering is $92/head all-in. They ask how many people they need to cut. Explain what is wrong with the obvious answer.

Sample Answer The obvious answer, $3,100 ÷ $92 = 34 guests, is wrong twice. **It uses the wrong per-head figure.** $92 is catering only. A marginal guest also costs bar, place setting, chair, stationery, cake, and favor — perhaps $50 more. Using catering alone overstates the required cut by roughly a third. **It ignores the steps.** Working downward from 156, the crossings back are the 20th table at 152 and then a cluster at 150 — restroom bracket, second shuttle, second bartender. **Cutting six names might save $1,590**, not $552. The correct method is to build the step map, work backward from the deficit, and find the *smallest* cut that closes it — which is frequently under half what a per-head calculation suggests. *Rubric:* Must identify both errors. Full credit requires stating that the correct method starts from the step map, and noting that every name not cut is a real gift to the client.

19. Explain why the fixed allocation of names to a contributing parent works better than an open invitation to suggest guests.

Sample Answer It converts an open-ended entitlement into a bounded, ownable resource. A parent told "let us know if there's anyone" has an unlimited claim and no way to know when they have used it up, so they keep asking — and each ask must be individually adjudicated, which is nine small conversations instead of one. A parent told "you have fifteen names, yours to spend however you like" has been given something specific and real, has full authority within it, and stops asking. It is the same mechanism as Chapter 3's contributor role menu: people who contribute money are buying evidence that their contribution mattered, and a bounded, visible allocation delivers that far more cheaply than veto power over everything. *Rubric:* Must identify boundedness and ownership as the mechanism. Full credit connects it to the Chapter 3 principle.

20. A couple invites 140 and you forecast 118 attending. Explain what you plan for, and why it is not 118.

Sample Answer The forecast governs *planning assumptions* — the budget model, the rental estimate, the initial floor plan. It does not govern *commitments*. You do not book to 118, because the forecast is a probabilistic estimate and being wrong downward is far more expensive than being wrong upward: insufficient seating and food fail publicly. So the plan sits between the forecast and the invitation count until RSVPs are in, with flexible elements (tables, chairs, meals) sized late and fixed elements (tent, restroom trailer, shuttle) sized to the higher plausible outcome, since those are the step costs that cannot be changed at three weeks. Once RSVPs are in, the guarantee is set at confirmed yes plus 2–3% — which is neither the forecast nor the invitation count. *Rubric:* Must distinguish planning assumption from commitment, must reference the asymmetry of forecast error, and must note that step-cost items are sized earlier and more conservatively than variable ones.

Section 4: Applied Scenario (5 points)

21. A couple is at 172 invited, budget $58,000, and you have modeled the wedding at **$63,400** — $5,400 over. Their venue is an all-inclusive hotel.

Step map: table of 10 at $110 all-in; one server per 22 guests at $290; one bartender per 80 at $330; the venue's room capacity tier changes at 160 (a larger ballroom, +$2,200, already included since they are at 172).

Marginal fully variable cost per guest: $148.

Forecast attendance: 84% overall.

Produce: (a) the expected attendance and what it implies; (b) whether a cut is actually needed and your reasoning; (c) if so, the smallest cut and its value; (d) what you say to the couple.

Sample Answer **(a) Expected attendance.** 172 × 84% = **144 attending.** This is the finding that changes everything. They are modeled at 172 and will host 144. **(b) Is a cut needed?** Almost certainly not — **but the money is not free.** The $63,400 model presumably includes fully variable costs at some assumed count. If it was built at 172, then 28 no-shows recover 28 × $148 = **$4,144** of fully variable cost, plus roughly three fewer tables ($330) and one fewer server ($290) = **$4,764**. That nearly closes the $5,400 gap without cutting a single name. **The trap:** at 144 attending they drop below 160, which means **the larger ballroom is no longer required** — a further $2,200 — except that the ballroom was booked on invited count and the venue will not release it at three weeks. **This is the reason to run the forecast in month three rather than month nine.** Booked early against the forecast, this couple saves $2,200; booked against the invitation count, they do not. **(c) The smallest cut.** If the model was built at 172 and the forecast holds, no cut is needed. But a planner who tells a client "no cut needed" based on a forecast has transferred a real risk to them without saying so. The honest position: - Recommend **no cut now**, but do not spend the projected saving. - Re-forecast at RSVP. - If attendance comes in above 155, revisit — and note that the exposure is roughly $1,500 per ten guests above forecast. If the client wants certainty rather than a forecast, the smallest cut is to **164** — twelve names, saving $1,776 variable plus one server ($290) and one table ($110) = **$2,176** — which combined with a conservative half-forecast recovery closes the gap with margin. **(d) What you say:** > "Good news first: you've invited 172 and I'd expect about 144 to come. If that holds, most of the gap closes by itself — about forty-seven hundred dollars of food, drink, tables, and staff you won't need to buy. > > Two things I want to flag, though. First, that's a forecast, not a fact, and I don't want us to spend it before the RSVPs are in. Second — and this is the one worth acting on — the venue put you in the larger ballroom because you're over 160 invited. At 144 attending you don't need it, but they won't let us downgrade at three weeks. If we're confident enough now, I can ask them to move us and hold the smaller room, which is another twenty-two hundred. That's a decision we should make in the next month, not in the last one. > > So: no cuts today. Let me talk to the hotel about the room." *Rubric:* | Criterion | 0 | 1 | 2 | |---|---|---|---| | Forecast (a) | Not computed | 144 computed | 144 computed *and* identified as the fact that reframes the whole problem | | Cut analysis (b) | Recommends a cut on the modeled number | Recognizes the forecast closes most of the gap | Also identifies the ballroom step and that it must be acted on early or lost | | Smallest cut (c) | Per-head arithmetic only | Correct arithmetic | Correct arithmetic *and* explicitly names the transferred forecast risk rather than promising a saving | | The conversation (d) | Delivers numbers | Delivers numbers with a recommendation | Good news first, forecast flagged as a forecast, one clear action with a deadline, no promise of savings not yet realized | *Scoring: (a)=1, (b)=1.5, (c)=1, (d)=1.5.*

Scoring and Next Steps

Score Assessment What to do
Under 50% Needs review Re-read §5.2, §5.3, §5.6. Redo Part A and B.1.
50–70% Partial Do B.2, B.3, B.4 by hand. The arithmetic is the chapter.
70–85% Solid Proceed to Chapter 6. Build a real step map (C.1) first.
Over 85% Strong Proceed. Deep Dive: case-study-02.md and exercise E.3.

Regardless of score: build one real step map for a real venue (C.1). Chapter 6 builds a budget, and a budget built without knowing where the steps are is a budget that will need rebuilding.