Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supply-chain routing studies can yield apparently optimal solutions that are difficult to audit when source-table compatibility, historical-cost coverage, and disruption assumptions are not reported. This study presents a reproducible decision-analytics workflow that combines a standard mixed-integer linear programming assignment model with deterministic sensitivity analysis and assumption-driven Monte Carlo stress testing. The public Supply Chain Logistics Problem Dataset was reconstructed from all seven source tables. Warehouse capacity was interpreted as documented daily order-processing capacity, and a complete H = 1–10 sweep identified the smallest cumulative-capacity multiplier that eliminated diagnostic dummy assignments. Of 9215 historical orders, 7845 (85.13%) had reconstructable freight costs; the excluded 1370 records were concentrated in a specific carrier-service-weight-band gap and were audited separately. The model generated 23,891 non-dominated real route options and solved 31,736 binary variables subject to 7864 constraints. H = 7 was the minimum zero-dummy aggregate capacity horizon, not a verified day-by-day schedule. At H = 7, optimized cost was 14,842,335.53 versus a reconstructed historical cost of 14,965,998.85, a modest reduction of 123,663.32 (0.83%). Uniform freight shocks preserved feasibility, whereas a 15% capacity loss left 248 orders unsupported. Removing dominant carrier V444_0 or origin port PORT04 left 5451 and 6610 orders unsupported, respectively. The contribution is a transparent framework for baseline coverage, aggregate-capacity feasibility, service-policy ablation, computational reporting, and route-concentration stress testing rather than a novel MILP algorithm or a general theory of resilience.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: