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-003 · COST SAVINGS

Simulated demonstration data

Technology spending is growing faster than usage

Decision: Which infrastructure resources can be safely right-sized?

Financial impact

$76,000

Annualized

Evidence

Additional Verification Needed

12 source records

Recommendation

Pilot smaller resource tiers and monitor reliability before changing recurring commitments.

Assumptions, risks & what would change the recommendation

Assumptions

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

Key risks

Reduced capacity
Performance degradation
Service reliability
Migration expense

Would change it

Usage averages may conceal seasonal peaks
Upcoming projects may need spare capacity

Stress-test this decision Full evidence

A · The Discovery · Original Finding

$76,000

Cost savings · Annualized

SIMULATED DEMONSTRATIONAdditional Verification Needed

Finding ID: DEC-FIN-003
Dataset version: BL-DEMO-2026-10-V1
Analysis timestamp · UTC: 2026-10-28T18:10:00Z
Calculation version: BL-FIN-V1

Cloud billing · Usage · Department budgets

The Business Question

Which infrastructure resources can be safely right-sized?

B · What the ERP Shows

Cloud billing

Recurring invoices within budget

Usage

Low utilization

Project demand

Delivery commitments continue

C · What Decidian Connects

Cloud invoicesUsage recordsBudgetProject demandRight-sized tier

12 fictional source records · stable identifiers

View detailed evidence

Record ID	Source system	Original values
TC-01	Cloud billing	resource: Cumulus compute cluster monthly Cost: 6,000 target Monthly: 3,500 prior Monthly: 5,200 implementation: 8,000
USE-TC-01	Usage	resource: Cumulus compute cluster utilization: 0.28 issue: Idle compute instances
BUD-TC-01	Department budgets	approved Monthly: 6,000
TC-02	Cloud billing	resource: Boreal archive storage monthly Cost: 3,500 target Monthly: 2,000 prior Monthly: 3,000 implementation: 4,000
USE-TC-02	Usage	resource: Boreal archive storage utilization: 0.36 issue: Unused storage tier
BUD-TC-02	Department budgets	approved Monthly: 3,500
TC-03	Cloud billing	resource: Juniper test environments monthly Cost: 4,000 target Monthly: 2,500 prior Monthly: 3,300 implementation: 6,000
USE-TC-03	Usage	resource: Juniper test environments utilization: 0.22 issue: Redundant environments
BUD-TC-03	Department budgets	approved Monthly: 4,000
TC-04	Cloud billing	resource: Aspen data transfer monthly Cost: 2,000 target Monthly: 1,166.67 prior Monthly: 1,800 implementation: 2,000
USE-TC-04	Usage	resource: Aspen data transfer utilization: 0.41 issue: Oversized service tier
BUD-TC-04	Department budgets	approved Monthly: 2,000

D · What Decidian Discovers

Idle compute, redundant test environments and oversized storage tiers can potentially be reduced without cancelling software capabilities.

Additional Verification Needed

E · Financial Calculation

$76,000

Cost savings · Annualized

Σ (current monthly tier − proposed monthly tier) × 12 = 76000. VC-* software seats are excluded to avoid double-counting.

Baseline decision: Implement targeted improvement

Implementation: $20,000

Modeled first-year net benefit: $19,900

Ongoing annualized benefit: $53,200

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

Pilot smaller resource tiers and monitor reliability before changing recurring commitments.

G · Risks and Trade-Offs

Reduced capacity
Performance degradation
Service reliability
Migration expense

What Could Change This Conclusion?

Usage averages may conceal seasonal peaks
Upcoming projects may need spare capacity

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.