Big Leap

Powered by Decidian Intelligence

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

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

Test a decision · Simulated data

Which campaigns acquire customers with weak downstream margins?

DEC-FIN-007 · INCREMENTAL PROFIT OPPORTUNITY

Simulated demonstration data

Strong campaign metrics can hide low-profit customers

Decision: Which campaigns acquire customers with weak downstream margins?

Financial impact

$216,800

Annualized

Evidence

Exploratory Opportunity

12 source records

Recommendation

Compare campaign customer contribution and retention; test reallocation or better delivery rather than automatically cancelling campaigns.

Assumptions, risks & what would change the recommendation

Assumptions

86% annual retention assumption
Attribution cohorts are fictional and mutually exclusive
Delivery cost includes non-hour costs; rounded hours are not exact payroll expense

Key risks

Losing customers who become profitable over time
Attribution bias
Reduced future pipeline

Would change it

High-cost customers may produce valuable referrals
Long-term retention could offset acquisition costs
Campaign attribution links are synthetic subsets, not all wins

Back to this finding

Evidence-linked decision

Strong campaign metrics can hide low-profit customers

Incremental profit opportunity · fictional records and app calculations · separate from company-wide strategy totals

Inspect source records

Original Finding · DEC-FIN-007 · $216,800

BL-DEMO-2026-10-V1 · analysis 2026-10-28T18:10:00Z

Baseline Scenario

Created 2026-10-29T07:23:34.922Z. Changes below affect only this scenario, never the original finding.

Expected benefit realization70%Implementation delay (months)3Implementation expense$20,000

Decision alternative

Gross annual

First-year net

Ongoing annualized

Implementation

Penalties

Break-even

A · Maintain current approach

Underlying exposure continues

See finding

$0

$0

$0

Not modeled

Scenario dependent

B · Reallocate campaign spending

Losing customers who become profitable over time

See finding

$93,820

$151,760

$20,000

Not modeled

Scenario dependent

C · Improve service delivery first

Slower realization; pilot may not generalize

See finding

$32,263

$75,880

$12,000

Not modeled

Scenario dependent

Alternatives use explicit realization and delay assumptions. Pilot realizes half the proposed benefit, two months later, with 60% of implementation expense. Not a forecast or live recommendation.

Optional live review uses Ask Decidian and may take 1–2 minutes. Source records and current assumptions are sent only when requested.

Test a different finding

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

Company-wide strategy test

Separate company model · These assumptions and results do not change the selected finding.

Company-wide financial assumptions

Revenue growth18.4%

Added acquisition spending+20%

Customer acquisition cost$14,375

Customer churn14.0%

Contract pricing increase10%

Employee utilization74%

Salary & labor cost change+0%

Service delivery efficiency+0%

Implementation costs$250,000

Retention sensitivity to price0.50× (loss per point of increase)

Company-wide scenario

Company-wide strategy comparison

Measure	Strategy A — Aggressive Growth	Strategy B — Profitability FirstMODEL LEADER	Strategy C — Balanced Strategy
Incremental revenue (first year)	$762K	$90K	$381K
Incremental revenue (run-rate)	$1.52M	$180K	$762K
Incremental operating profit (first year)	−$130K	$280K	$60K
Incremental operating profit (run-rate)	$249K	$979K	$458K
Cash impact (first year)	−$224K	$620K	$13K
Downside exposure (severe vs. base)	$7,292	−$42K	−$51K
Implementation cost	$140K	$250K	$145K
Break-even timing	Month 10	Month 6	Month 7
Primary risks	— Needs about 4 new hires to deliver the added work — Existing leakage patterns are replicated in new accounts	— Slower near-term revenue growth; customer resistance to contract changes	— Execution complexity: two programs run at once

App calculation Model leader = highest average of base and severe-case first-year operating profit impact. Scenarios are illustrative; no probabilities are assigned. Cash, revenue and profit are separate measures.

Company-wide profit bridge

Current operating profit$1,817,600
Scenario effect on existing business$0
Leakage reduction$200,160
Growth & pricing contribution$144,753
Implementation & operating costs−$284,960
Projected operating profit$1,877,553

Operating profit only — gross revenue opportunities are not counted as profit. First-year applies ramp-up timing and includes one-time implementation costs.

Company-wide Decidian interpretation

Challenge the company strategy

Run the stress test first, then challenge the recommendation.