Test a decision · Simulated data
Which active accounts show converging warning signs?
DEC-FIN-005 · REVENUE AT RISK
Simulated demonstration dataActive 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
Evidence-linked decision
Active accounts can still need retention attention
Revenue at risk · fictional records and app calculations · separate from company-wide strategy totals
Original Finding · DEC-FIN-005 · $840,000
BL-DEMO-2026-10-V1 · analysis 2026-10-28T18:10:00Z
Baseline Scenario
Created 2026-10-29T07:21:36.241Z. Changes below affect only this scenario, never the original finding.
| Decision alternative | Gross annual | First-year net | Ongoing annualized | Implementation | Penalties | Break-even |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A · Do nothing Largest revenue exposure | See finding | $0 | $0 | $0 | Not modeled | Scenario dependent |
B · Recommended: account recovery program Depends on account-manager follow-through | See finding | −$34,880 | $20,160 | $50,000 | Not modeled | Scenario dependent |
C · Alternative: dedicated customer success Higher fixed cost | See finding | −$140,013 | −$21,350 | $124,000 | 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
Company-wide strategy test
Separate company model · These assumptions and results do not change the selected finding.
Company-wide financial assumptions
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 |
|
|
|
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.
