Workflow Leak Report · Synthetic sample
A decision record for the handoffs slowing delivery.
This page mirrors the browser report buyers receive after completing the detailed assessment. Every value below is generated from the clearly disclosed fictional inputs shown in the report.
- Business
- Fictional agency
- Team
- 8 people
- New work
- 4/week
- Team-hour value
- $125
Low control coverage. Repair the operating rules before adding automation.
Executive read
The model points to scope change first.
A ±20% sensitivity band around a $6,081 fictional, buyer-reported base. This is not verified loss, ROI, or guaranteed savings.
- Input confidence
- 81/100
- Modeled stages
- 4/6
- Unmodeled stages
- 2/6
- Independently verified
- No
Calculation trace
See what produced every modeled value.
Each stage uses four observable controls plus event volume, failure rate, recovery time, and the fictional team-hour value. Unknown stages stay unmodeled instead of receiving invented numbers.
| Stage | Controls | Basis | Events/wk | Failure | Recovery | Modeled/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Client intake | 0 yes · 2 partial · 2 no | measured | 18 | 30% | 35 min | $1,705 |
| Access and document collection | 0 yes · 2 partial · 2 no | estimated | 12 | 25% | 45 min | $1,218 |
| Approvals and decisions | 0 yes · 1 partial · 3 no | measured | 20 | 20% | 20 min | $722 |
| Scope-change control | 0 yes · 0 partial · 4 no | estimated | 6 | 50% | 90 min | $2,436 |
| Delivery visibility | 1 yes · 3 partial · 0 no | unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Unmodeled |
| Handoff and ownership | 0 yes · 2 partial · 2 no | unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Unmodeled |
Inspect the synthetic evidence ledger
Client intake
Evidence availability: Form or checklist available
Measurement basis: measured
Weakest visible control: A named owner and response target exist for every new request.
Access and document collection
Evidence availability: Dashboard or system record available
Measurement basis: estimated
Weakest visible control: Every missing dependency has an owner and due date.
Approvals and decisions
Evidence availability: Audit trail or activity log available
Measurement basis: measured
Weakest visible control: Each approval has a named person with decision authority.
Scope-change control
Evidence availability: SOP or written policy available
Measurement basis: estimated
Weakest visible control: An authorized person approves price and timing before work starts.
Delivery visibility
Evidence availability: Dashboard or system record available
Measurement basis: unknown
Weakest visible control: Clients receive status updates through a defined cadence or trigger.
Handoff and ownership
Evidence availability: No supporting artifact identified
Measurement basis: unknown
Weakest visible control: Health and acceptance evidence are recorded before closure.
Repair order
Three leaks to address before building.
- 01
Scope-change control
An authorized person approves price and timing before work starts.
- Priority
- 100/100
- Control score
- 0/100
- Modeled base
- $2,436
- 02
Client intake
A named owner and response target exist for every new request.
- Priority
- 73/100
- Control score
- 25/100
- Modeled base
- $1,705
- 03
Access and document collection
Every missing dependency has an owner and due date.
- Priority
- 64/100
- Control score
- 25/100
- Modeled base
- $1,218
30-day repair sequence
Instrument first. Standardize second. Automate last.
Scope-change control
Separate change requests from routine messages and require impact, price, and approval before work starts.
Client intake
Replace free-form requests with one required intake path and a visible completeness check.
Access and document collection
Create a least-privilege access checklist with named owners, due dates, and missing-item reminders.
Keep accountable decisions visible.
Automate collection, routing, reminders, and evidence. Keep pricing, scope exceptions, client acceptance, and production approval with accountable people.
Method and limits
The report shows what it knows and what it does not.
Formula
Events per week × failure rate × recovery minutes ÷ 60 × team-hour value × 4.33.
Confidence
Stronger buyer-reported basis. Evidence coverage is 83.3% and weighted measurement coverage is 50%.
Known gaps
- Delivery visibility: no event-frequency or recovery-time estimate was provided.
- Handoff and ownership: no event-frequency or recovery-time estimate was provided.
Explicit limitations
- Scores come from 24 observable-control answers supplied by the buyer; DevCanDoIt did not independently inspect the workflow.
- Modeled friction uses buyer-reported event frequency, failure rate, recovery minutes, and team-hour value.
- The low and high values are a 20% sensitivity band around the modeled base, not guaranteed savings or financial results.
- Evidence availability is buyer-reported. No supporting files were uploaded or reviewed in this self-service product.
- No client files, credentials, financial records, medical data, or HR data were used.