Simulated business data | Decidian intelligence demonstration DEMONSTRATION MODE — SAVED RESULTS

Start Big Leap demo Big Leap ERP view Connection Evidence Explorer Owner decisions

Decidian financial intelligence · Simulated data

Show me how Decidian found this

DEC-FIN-005 · REVENUE AT RISK

Simulated demonstration data

Active accounts can still need retention attention

Decision: Which active accounts show converging warning signs?

Financial impact

$840,000

Annualized

Evidence

Additional Verification Needed

9 source records

Recommendation

Prioritize proactive account reviews.

Assumptions, risks & what would change the recommendation

Assumptions

Fictional records are internally consistent; validate real contracts and usage before acting

Key risks

Extra support cost
Intervention may not prevent churn

Would change it

Some complaints may be resolved already
Active status is not a churn prediction

Stress-test this decision Full evidence

A · The Discovery · Original Finding

$840,000

Revenue at risk · Annualized

SIMULATED DEMONSTRATIONAdditional Verification Needed

Finding ID: DEC-FIN-005
Dataset version: BL-DEMO-2026-10-V1
Analysis timestamp · UTC: 2026-10-28T18:10:00Z
Calculation version: BL-FIN-V1

CRM / Projects / Customer experience

The Business Question

Which active accounts show converging warning signs?

B · What the ERP Shows

CRM

Accounts active

Projects

Milestones missed

Customer experience

Complaints and falling engagement

C · What Decidian Connects

Active contractsMissed milestonesComplaintsEngagementRetention attention

9 fictional source records · stable identifiers

View detailed evidence

Record ID	Source system	Original values
RA-01	CRM / Projects / Customer experience	name: Ridgeview Orthodontics annual Revenue: 148,000 complaints: 6 missed Milestones: 4 engagement Drop: 0.55 results Trend: -0.22
RA-02	CRM / Projects / Customer experience	name: Coastal Pantry Co. annual Revenue: 126,000 complaints: 5 missed Milestones: 3 engagement Drop: 0.4 results Trend: -0.18
RA-03	CRM / Projects / Customer experience	name: Beacon Title & Escrow annual Revenue: 112,000 complaints: 2 missed Milestones: 3 engagement Drop: 0.5 results Trend: -0.15
RA-04	CRM / Projects / Customer experience	name: Summit Physical Therapy annual Revenue: 98,000 complaints: 4 missed Milestones: 2 engagement Drop: 0.35 results Trend: -0.12
RA-05	CRM / Projects / Customer experience	name: Lakeshore Auto Group annual Revenue: 92,000 complaints: 3 missed Milestones: 2 engagement Drop: 0.3 results Trend: -0.2
RA-06	CRM / Projects / Customer experience	name: Prairie Wind Solar annual Revenue: 84,000 complaints: 3 missed Milestones: 1 engagement Drop: 0.45 results Trend: -0.1
RA-07	CRM / Projects / Customer experience	name: Maple & Main Bakery annual Revenue: 66,000 complaints: 1 missed Milestones: 2 engagement Drop: 0.25 results Trend: -0.08
RA-08	CRM / Projects / Customer experience	name: Clearwater Pools annual Revenue: 62,000 complaints: 2 missed Milestones: 1 engagement Drop: 0.2 results Trend: -0.09
RA-09	CRM / Projects / Customer experience	name: Hearthstone Senior Living annual Revenue: 52,000 complaints: 1 missed Milestones: 1 engagement Drop: 0.3 results Trend: -0.06

D · What Decidian Discovers

Nine accounts combine delays, complaints and declining engagement. Either system can be correct independently.

Additional Verification Needed

E · Financial Calculation

$840,000

Revenue at risk · Annualized

Σ annual contract revenue of RA-01–RA-09 = 840000; not a prediction of loss. Intervention comparisons use explicitly assumed loss shares, not probabilities.

Baseline decision: Do nothing

Implementation: $0

Modeled first-year net benefit: $0

Ongoing annualized benefit: $0

Original financial impact is not itself a guaranteed net benefit. Timing, realization and implementation are modeled separately.

Assumptions

Fictional records are internally consistent; validate real contracts and usage before acting

F · Recommendation

Prioritize proactive account reviews.

G · Risks and Trade-Offs

Extra support cost
Intervention may not prevent churn

What Could Change This Conclusion?

Some complaints may be resolved already
Active status is not a churn prediction

H · Next Decision

TEST THIS DECISION

Optional review sends these fictional records to the existing Decidian connection; it may take 1–2 minutes.

All findings

Three departments are paying for overlapping software Vendor charges may not match contract terms Technology spending is growing faster than usage Additional client work is reducing profitability Strong campaign metrics can hide low-profit customers Revenue growth is not translating into cash at the same rate Revenue growth is masking declining profitability Renewal timing can lock in unnecessary cost Sales growth forecasts conflict with delivery capacity Active accounts can still need retention attention High-intent leads have slower follow-up Underperforming client contracts Software & vendor waste Sales-to-operations misalignment Delayed collections Contract pricing optimization Improved sales conversion Client retention improvements Resource utilization improvements

Money you could save

$286K

Gross avoidable annual expenses before timing and costs

Money you may be losing

$420K

Unbilled delivery-cost exposure, within $780K total leakage

Money you could make

$1.24M

Gross existing financial opportunities before overlap and realization

Money at risk

$840K

Annual contract revenue exposed, not a forecast of loss

Different financial categories; may overlap and are never added together. All figures are simulated.

What doesn't add up?

Sales forecast

Healthy growth pipeline

Delivery capacity

Limited sustainable staff capacity

Growth may require labor costs missing from the original forecast.

Department budgets

Software spend within limits

Vendor utilization

Capabilities overlap across teams

Budget compliance may mask company-wide savings.

CRM

Customer remains active

Customer experience

Delays, complaints and falling engagement

An active account can still need retention attention.

Neither source must be wrong. The tension becomes visible when their information is considered together.