D-CAT Group ↗ Contact ENTRDEESAZ
12 Questions Start a 4-week pilot
Start a 4-week pilot

Solutions · by department · executive office

The company scorecard, read before the meeting: which unit carries the variance, and what the finance model can and cannot say

The chief executive and the executive committee (plan attainment, the variance bridge, the scissors between revenue and margin) · the CFO and the head of financial planning, who own the model · business-unit general managers, who receive the recommendations · the board secretary, who reads the brief · the CIO, because the consolidated ledger stays on-premise and the model's scope decides who may read which unit.

How the three agents on this page read one semantic modelOne semantic model on the left; three scheduled agents in the middle - CEO Agent, Business Unit Variance Agent, Board Brief Agent; each publishes findings, recommendations and a brief on the right.semantic modelimported from Axoria Data Studiorevenuecost_of_salesgross_marginopexebitdaCEO Agentmonthly on the 5th · 06:00FfindingRrecomm.BbriefBusiness Unit VarianceAgentmonthly on the 5th · 06:30FfindingRrecomm.BbriefBoard Brief Agentmonthly on the 8th · 06:00FfindingRrecomm.Bbriefevery number in a record carries an evidence address

Questions

The monthly questions the chief executive asks

  • Are we on plan for revenue, margin and cash, and which units carry the variance?
  • What changed in the outlook since last month, and which decision does it need?
  • Are customers and people staying, unit by unit?
  • Are the top initiatives on track, and is money being spent that is not tied to them?

In conversation

Sample questions people type into the conversation

deepen path — the finding's evidence is carried frozen; a new number needs a new query, and the agent says so

  • "Break the retail unit's EBITDA gap down by cost line."
  • "Which unit's margin fell while its revenue grew?"
  • "Show the energy line by store for August."
  • "How much of the receivables rise is logistics?"
  • "Which month is closed in the model?"

Personas

Three example agents

The agents below are examples for this department, not a fixed set: CEO Agent · Business Unit Variance Agent · Board Brief Agent. Each one’s scheduled run is shown in the example sets that follow.

Set 1

CEO Agent

Audience: the chief executive and the executive committee.

Set 2

Business Unit Variance Agent

Audience: the unit general managers and their finance leads; the CFO.

Set 3

Board Brief Agent

Audience: the board, the board secretary, the CFO.

An agent's name says which measures it reads and for whom. It holds none of the role's authority: it does not decide, approve or act.

Agents for the topics you choose

An agent is a job description, a bound semantic model and a schedule — not code — so the topics it watches are yours to set: a payer, a service line, a campaign, a supplier. We write the first ones with you.

Build your agents with us →

Example sets

Three example sets, one run each

Each set is one agent persona and one scheduled run’s output — the brief, the recommendations and the findings they rest on — in the product’s own record envelope. The first set is open; the other two are collapsed. The model and the measures the sets assume are listed at the foot of the page.

IllustrativeSet 1CEO Agent
Persona
Reads the consolidated scorecard of a family-owned holding with four business units — retail (58 stores), food manufacturing (three plants), logistics (a fleet of 240 vehicles) and packaging (two plants) — 8,640 employees, amounts in Turkish lira; separates "we grew" from "we earned", and "the group missed plan" from "one unit missed plan". · Audience: the chief executive and the executive committee. · Tone: executive-summary language, short and exact; nominal figures are called nominal. · Output language: en
Signals it watches
(1) Revenue–margin scissors — revenue rising while EBITDA holds or falls, by unit. (2) Plan attainment by unit for revenue and EBITDA, full months only, with the source of the group gap. (3) Cost-line drift — an operating-cost line growing faster than the revenue it serves. (4) People and customers by unit — voluntary attrition and survey scores, quarter and month. (5) Cash against plan, year to date.
Thresholds it was given
finding 15 % year on year · plan deviation 5 % · critical 40 % · scissors 10 points · ratio metrics 8 % · minimum share 2 % of group revenue · severity rule: medium when a threshold is crossed, high when a ratio metric moves more than 1.25× its threshold or a count metric more than 1.5× the finding threshold, critical above the critical threshold; an ongoing topic keeps the severity it was given

Run header

  • Scheduled monthly on the 5th, 06:00, Europe/Istanbul
  • Period: August 2026 (31 days, 21 weekdays) vs August 2025 (31 days, 21 weekdays) — equal days — and vs the approved budget (version 1)
  • Data complete through 2026-09-12, measured via max(POSTING_DATE), 10 days ago (the August close was posted on 2026-09-12; September is open and is not read)
  • Scope: this data model has row-level access rules; the agent runs under the group scope (all four units, no site-level rows below the unit)
  • Model: the workspace's approved model, written onto the run
  • Cost: recorded on the run
Brief

August 2026: Revenue +20.45 % Nominal While EBITDA +1.72 % — Margin 11.02 % → 9.31 %; Retail Grew Fastest and Carries 78.57 % of the EBITDA Shortfall Against Budget; Retail Attrition 2.89 % a Month; Customer Survey Not Loaded

Assumptions strip

You did not state a period; last closed month (August 2026) was assumed. Amounts are nominal Turkish lira; this model carries no price index. Plan means the approved budget, version 1 — no reforecast is loaded. The customer survey returned no rows for August and is recorded as a data state. Nothing below business-unit level is in this model.

The group sold 20.45 % more in August than a year earlier and earned 1.72 % more: the EBITDA margin fell from 11.02 % to 9.31 %, and the scissors is a retail story — the unit that is 51.57 % of the group's revenue grew 24.10 % and earned 6.27 % less, while manufacturing grew 14.90 % and earned 9.84 % more. Against the budget the group is −4.22 % on revenue and −14.94 % on EBITDA; retail's 44 M ₺ EBITDA gap is 78.57 % of what the three units below plan missed, and logistics is above plan on both lines. Retail's voluntary attrition rose to 2.89 % of headcount a month, against a group rate of 2.27 %. The customer axis and the reforecast could not be read this run.

covers: Finding 1, Finding 2, Finding 3

— Run: monthly, the workspace's approved model, data complete through 2026-09-12. Guard Ledger: held 1 — candidate f-04, reason numeric_provenance: token real growth rate has no address — the model carries no price index; data state 1 — mart customer_survey, 0 rows for August; not_selected 0; duplicate 0.

Recommendation 1

Break the retail unit's August EBITDA gap down by cost line against its own plan, and put its gross-margin rate beside its revenue — the unit that grew fastest carries 78.57 % of the shortfall

based_on: Finding 1, Finding 2 · owner: CFO, with the retail unit's general manager

Retail grew 24.10 % and missed its EBITDA plan by 27.16 %; the scissors is either in the cost of sales (a margin-rate problem) or in the operating-cost lines (a cost problem), and the two call for different owners. Both cuts are in this model at unit level — the Business Unit Variance Agent reads them — and the store level is in the retail unit's own model. The price-versus-volume question needs that model, not this one.

The findings this rests on

Finding 1

Revenue–Margin Scissors: Group Revenue +20.45 % Nominal While EBITDA +1.72 % — 18.73-Point Gap; EBITDA Margin 11.02 % → 9.31 %; Retail Grew Fastest (+24.10 %) and Earned Less (−6.27 %)

severity highdirection upnovelty newtrust Abreakdown BUSINESS_UNIT = Retail

Group revenue for August 2026 was 3,180 M ₺ against 2,640 M ₺ in August 2025 (+20.45 %); EBITDA was 296 M ₺ against 291 M ₺ (+1.72 %). The gap of 18.73 percentage points is 1.87× the 10-point scissors threshold, and the EBITDA margin fell from 11.02 % to 9.31 % — a −15.55 % change in a ratio metric, 1.94× the 8 % ratio threshold — severity high; no line crosses the 40 % critical line. The units moved in two directions: retail, 51.57 % of group revenue (1,640 M ₺ of 3,180 M ₺), grew 24.10 % and earned 6.27 % less (118 M ₺ against 125.9 M ₺, margin 9.53 % → 7.20 %); manufacturing grew 14.90 % (812 M ₺ against 706.7 M ₺) and earned 9.84 % more (96 M ₺ against 87.4 M ₺); logistics revenue 418 M ₺ (+22.22 %) with EBITDA 44 M ₺ against 41.2 M ₺ (+6.80 %); packaging revenue 310 M ₺ (+14.90 %) with EBITDA 38 M ₺ against 36.5 M ₺ (+4.11 %). Growth is nominal — this model carries no price index, so nominal growth is not volume growth, and it cannot separate price from volume: the retail unit's units-sold measure lives in a different data model.

Finding 2

Plan Attainment: Group Revenue −4.22 % and EBITDA −14.94 % Against the August Budget — Retail EBITDA −27.16 % Against Plan Carries 78.57 % of the Units' Combined Shortfall; Logistics Above Plan on Both Lines

severity highdirection downnovelty newtrust Abreakdown BUSINESS_UNIT = Retail

Against an August budget of 3,320 M ₺ revenue and 348 M ₺ EBITDA, the group delivered 3,180 M ₺ (−4.22 %, inside the 5 % plan-deviation threshold) and 296 M ₺ (−14.94 %, 2.99× the plan-deviation threshold — severity high); the comparison is made on a full, closed month as the agent's rules require. The EBITDA gap of 52 M ₺ is not spread: retail delivered 118 M ₺ against a plan of 162 M ₺ (−27.16 %), packaging 38 M ₺ against 45 M ₺ (−15.56 %), manufacturing 96 M ₺ against 101 M ₺ (−4.95 %), and logistics 44 M ₺ against 40 M ₺ (+10.00 %) with revenue also above plan (+3.98 %). Of the 56 M ₺ that the three units below plan missed in total, retail's 44 M ₺ is 78.57 %. The model holds the approved budget only; the June reforecast was not loaded, so attainment against the latest outlook cannot be read here.

Recommendation 2

Load the June reforecast as a plan version and re-run plan attainment against it before the board reads the budget comparison

based_on: Finding 2 · owner: head of financial planning, with the data-model owner

A −14.94 % EBITDA attainment against a budget set in December may be a small shortfall against a reforecast set in June, or a larger one; this model cannot say which because only one plan version is loaded. Adding the version is a Data Studio change; until it is made, every plan finding on this page names the version it was measured against.

Also published in this run, with no recommendation resting on it

Finding 3

Retail Voluntary Attrition 2.11 % → 2.89 % of Headcount per Month (+36.85 %) While Group Attrition +19.17 % — the August Customer Survey Returned No Rows

severity highdirection upnovelty newtrust Abreakdown BUSINESS_UNIT = Retail

The HR mart shows 119 voluntary leavers on the retail unit's average headcount of 4,120 in August 2026 (2.89 %), against 84 of 3,980 (2.11 %) a year earlier — +36.85 %, 4.61× the 8 % ratio threshold — severity high; the group moved from 1.90 % (158 of 8,300) to 2.27 % (196 of 8,640), +19.17 %. Retail is 47.69 % of group headcount (4,120 of 8,640). The customer axis could not be read: the survey mart returned no rows for August — a data state, not a finding; the July score remains the last verified position. The HR mart carries leavers and headcount by unit, not reasons, and nothing below unit level is in this model.

What this run could not see.

A price index, the June reforecast, the August survey, and anything below business-unit level. The agent wrote a "real" growth rate from memory and the sentence was held; the product will not publish an adjustment the model cannot make.

IllustrativeSet 2Business Unit Variance Agent
Persona
Reads each unit's profit-and-loss lines of the same holding against plan and against last year — revenue, gross margin, the operating-cost lines, EBITDA — and finds the line that carries a unit's variance. · Audience: the unit general managers and their finance leads; the CFO. · Tone: line by line, plain, with the plan version named. · Output language: en
Signals it watches
(1) A cost line growing faster than its unit's revenue, against plan and against last year. (2) Concentration — the share of a unit's operating-cost overrun carried by one line. (3) Gross-margin rate by unit and site, against last year. (4) Revenue by customer segment against plan, where the unit's revenue is segmented. (5) Lines that returned no rows for the closed month — posting not finished.
Thresholds it was given
finding 15 % year on year · plan deviation 5 % · critical 40 % · ratio metrics 8 % · minimum share 2 % of the unit's operating cost · severity rule: medium when a threshold is crossed, high when a ratio metric moves more than 1.25× its threshold or a count metric more than 1.5× the finding threshold, critical above the critical threshold; an ongoing topic keeps the severity it was given

Run header

  • Scheduled monthly on the 5th, 06:30, Europe/Istanbul
  • Period: August 2026 vs August 2025 (equal days) and vs the approved budget (version 1)
  • Data complete through 2026-09-12, measured via max(POSTING_DATE), 10 days ago
  • Scope: group scope — all units, cost lines and sites readable (site rows are in this model for cost lines; revenue is at unit level)
  • Model: the workspace's approved model
  • Cost: recorded on the run
Brief

August 2026 by Unit: Retail's Energy Line +60.73 % Year on Year Carries 75.65 % of Its Cost Overrun — Manufacturing Margin Rate Up to 29.56 % — Packaging Export Revenue −22.42 % Against Plan; Retail Marketing Line Not Posted

Assumptions strip

Last closed month (August 2026) was assumed. Plan means the approved budget, version 1. Amounts are nominal lira. The retail marketing line returned no rows for August and is recorded as a data state; the retail cost overrun is therefore a floor.

Retail's energy line was 61.4 M ₺ in August, 39.55 % over plan and 60.73 % over last year, and it carries 75.65 % of the unit's 23 M ₺ operating-cost overrun while rent came in under plan; the line is now 3.74 % of retail revenue. Manufacturing moved the other way: its gross-margin rate rose from 26.50 % to 29.56 % on revenue growth of 14.90 %, with Plant 2 at 33.09 %. Packaging missed its revenue plan by 11.93 % and its EBITDA plan by 15.56 %, with export customers carrying 88.10 % of the revenue shortfall (−22.42 % against plan) while domestic customers were −2.67 %. Consumption, input prices and exchange rates could not be read this run.

covers: Finding 1, Finding 2, Finding 3

— Run: monthly, the workspace's approved model, data complete through 2026-09-12. Guard Ledger: held 1 — candidate r-02, reason numeric_provenance: token kWh figure for the retail stores has no address — consumption is not in this model; data state 1 — line retail_marketing, 0 rows for August (accruals not posted); duplicate 1 — candidate f-04 (energy line restated by store) merged into Finding 1 on fingerprint; not_selected 0.

Recommendation 1

Break the retail energy line down by store and by month since January, and put each store's trading hours beside it

based_on: Finding 1 · owner: the retail unit's finance lead, with the facilities manager

A 60.73 % rise in one line on 24.10 % more revenue is either tariff, consumption or both, and this model can show only where — by store, month by month. Trading hours are in the retail unit's model; kilowatt-hours are in the facilities system and not yet in any model. If the rise is uniform across stores, the next measurement is the tariff; if it is concentrated, it is the stores' consumption.

The findings this rests on

Finding 1

Retail Energy Cost 44.0 M ₺ Plan → 61.4 M ₺ Actual (+39.55 %), +60.73 % Year on Year — 3.74 % of Retail Revenue Against 2.89 %; the Line Carries 75.65 % of Retail's Operating-Cost Overrun While Rent Is Under Plan

severity criticaldirection upnovelty newtrust Abreakdown COST_LINE = Energy

The retail unit's energy line was 61.4 M ₺ in August 2026 against a plan of 44.0 M ₺ (+39.55 %) and against 38.2 M ₺ in August 2025 (+60.73 %, above the 40 % critical threshold — severity critical); as a share of the unit's revenue it moved from 2.89 % to 3.74 %. Retail operating cost in total was 312 M ₺ against a plan of 289 M ₺ (+7.96 %), and the energy line's 17.4 M ₺ overrun is 75.65 % of the unit's 23 M ₺ total overrun. The other large fixed line moved the other way: rent was 88.0 M ₺ against 90.5 M ₺ planned (−2.76 %). This model holds cost by line and by store, not consumption; a tariff rise and a consumption rise cannot be separated here, and the kilowatt-hour measure sits in the facilities system.

Recommendation 2

Break the packaging unit's export revenue down by customer segment and invoice currency for the year to date, and place the plan's assumed rate beside it

based_on: Finding 3 · owner: the packaging unit's general manager, with the head of financial planning

Whether the export shortfall is volume or currency is the question the plan assumption answers, and the plan's rate assumption is in the budget file, not in this model. The invoice-currency cut is in the model; the rate is a one-line addition to the plan version.

The findings this rests on

Finding 3

Packaging Revenue 310 M ₺ Against 352 M ₺ Plan (−11.93 %) With EBITDA −15.56 % Against Plan — Export Customers −22.42 % Against Plan While Domestic −2.67 %

severity highdirection downnovelty newtrust Abreakdown CUSTOMER_SEGMENT = Export

The packaging unit delivered 310 M ₺ of revenue against a plan of 352 M ₺ (−11.93 %) and 38 M ₺ of EBITDA against 45 M ₺ (−15.56 %), 2.39× and 3.11× the 5 % plan-deviation threshold — severity high. Export customers carry 37 M ₺ of the 42 M ₺ revenue shortfall (88.10 %): they delivered 128 M ₺ against 165 M ₺ planned (−22.42 %), domestic customers 182 M ₺ against 187 M ₺ (−2.67 %). Export revenue is booked in lira at the invoice-date rate; the foreign-currency effect on the export line cannot be separated in this model, which holds the invoice currency as a dimension but no rate table.

Data state

Data state (not a finding): the retail unit's marketing line returned no rows for August — the marketing accruals had not been posted by the edge. No severity; the line is excluded from the retail operating-cost overrun in Finding 1, which is therefore a floor.

Also published in this run, with no recommendation resting on it

Finding 2

Manufacturing Gross Margin 26.50 % → 29.56 % of Revenue (+11.52 %) While Its Revenue +14.90 % — Gross Margin +28.14 % in Amount; Plant 2 at 33.09 %

severity highdirection upnovelty newtrust Abreakdown BUSINESS_UNIT = Manufacturing

The manufacturing unit's gross margin was 240 M ₺ on revenue of 812 M ₺ in August 2026 (29.56 %), against 187.3 M ₺ on 706.7 M ₺ (26.50 %) a year earlier — a +11.52 % change in a ratio metric, 1.44× the 8 % ratio threshold — severity high, and a +28.14 % change in amount against revenue growth of 14.90 %. The rate is not uniform: Plant 2 stands at 33.09 % (99.6 M ₺ on 301 M ₺), Plant 1 at 27.31 % (77.3 M ₺ on 283 M ₺), Plant 3 at 27.68 % (63.1 M ₺ on 228 M ₺). This is the unit that earned more while the group earned the same. The raw-material price index is not in this model; a margin gain from input-price timing and one from yield look identical here.

What this run could not see.

Kilowatt-hours, the raw-material price index, the exchange-rate table and the plan's rate assumption — none is in this model, and each is named where it would have changed a sentence. The retail marketing line was not posted by the edge and the overrun is reported as a floor.

IllustrativeSet 3Board Brief Agent
Persona
Reads the balance-sheet and cash side of the same holding for the board pack — leverage, capex against plan, operating cash flow, receivables — year to date and month; publishes an executive summary with the few findings that carry it. · Audience: the board, the board secretary, the CFO. · Tone: formal, sparse; the brief leads. · Output contract: executive summary — one brief, up to three findings, at most one recommendation, addressed to the finance function rather than to the board (the board decides what to ask for). · Output language: en
Signals it watches
(1) Net debt over trailing-twelve-month EBITDA, against the covenant value loaded into the model. (2) Capex paid against plan, year to date, by programme. (3) Operating cash flow against plan, year to date. (4) Receivables growth against revenue growth, and the engine-derived days-sales-outstanding. (5) Cash by legal entity where a minimum balance is loaded.
Thresholds it was given
finding 15 % year on year · plan deviation 5 % · critical 40 % · ratio metrics 8 % · minimum share 2 % of the year's capex plan · severity rule: medium when a threshold is crossed, high when a ratio metric moves more than 1.25× its threshold or a count metric more than 1.5× the finding threshold, critical above the critical threshold; an ongoing topic keeps the severity it was given

Run header

  • Scheduled monthly on the 8th, 06:00, Europe/Istanbul
  • Period: August 2026 month-end position and year to date (1 January–31 August, 243 days) vs the same date of 2025 (243 days) and vs plan
  • Data complete through 2026-09-12, measured via max(POSTING_DATE), 10 days ago
  • Scope: board scope (all entities; treasury and ledger measures)
  • Model: the workspace's approved model
  • Cost: recorded on the run
Brief

Board Pack, August 2026: Leverage 2.61× Against a 3.00× Covenant, Net Debt +31.75 % on EBITDA +10.06 % — Capex 26.19 % Under Plan, the Retail Refurbishment at 50.00 % of Its Plan — Operating Cash Flow 10.46 % Under Plan as Receivables Outgrow Revenue

Assumptions strip

Month-end position at 31 August 2026 and year to date from 1 January were assumed. Plan means the approved budget, version 1. Net debt is book value at the month-end rate; the foreign-currency revaluation is not separated. Capex is paid, not committed. Days sales outstanding uses August revenue as the run rate. One recommendation is published, addressed to the finance function; the board decides what to ask for.

Net debt of 9,420 M ₺ is 31.75 % higher than a year ago while trailing EBITDA is 10.06 % higher, so leverage has moved from 2.18× to 2.61× against a covenant of 3.00×; how much of the debt rise is revaluation of currency-linked loans cannot be read from this model. Capital spending is 26.19 % under plan year to date, and the retail refurbishment carries 70.45 % of the underspend — it has paid 310 M ₺ of its 620 M ₺ plan while the logistics fleet is above plan at +5.79 %; whether the refurbishment is deferred or late-invoiced needs committed capex, which is not loaded. Operating cash flow is 10.46 % under plan, and receivables have grown 35.45 % against revenue growth of 20.45 %, taking days sales outstanding from 62.94 to 70.77. The unit split of receivables is in the finance model, not this one.

covers: Finding 1, Finding 2, Finding 3

— Run: monthly, the workspace's approved model, data complete through 2026-09-12. Guard Ledger: held 1 — candidate f-04, reason numeric_provenance: token headroom amount in lira has no address and no declared operation; not_selected 1 — candidate f-05 (cash by legal entity, below the 2 % minimum share) dropped at the cardinality gate; duplicate 0.

Recommendation 1

Break the receivables rise down by business unit and ageing bucket for the year to date in the finance model, and put each unit's contractual payment terms beside it

based_on: Finding 3 · owner: CFO, with the group treasurer

Receivables grew 35.45 % on revenue growth of 20.45 %, and this model holds them at group level only. If the rise sits in one unit's over-60-day bucket, the next measurement is that unit's collection; if it is spread and within terms, it is the customer mix by payment term. Both cuts are in the finance function's model, not in this one; the record names that model rather than guessing. Committed capex, the second gap in this run, is a model addition for the head of financial planning.

The findings this rests on

Finding 3

Operating Cash Flow Year to Date 2,140 M ₺ Against 2,390 M ₺ Planned (−10.46 %) While Receivables +35.45 % on Revenue +20.45 % — Days Sales Outstanding 62.94 → 70.77 (+12.44 %)

severity highdirection downnovelty newtrust Abreakdown — (group)

Operating cash flow from January to August 2026 was 2,140 M ₺ against a plan of 2,390 M ₺ (−10.46 %, 2.09× the 5 % plan-deviation threshold — severity high). Receivables at the end of August stood at 7,260 M ₺ against 5,360 M ₺ a year earlier (+35.45 %, 2.36× the 15 % finding threshold), against revenue growth of 20.45 % in the month — a 15.00-point gap. The engine-derived days-sales-outstanding (receivables / August revenue × 31), moved from 62.94 to 70.77 days (+12.44 %); the assumption that one month's revenue stands for the run rate is stated on the record, and a seasonal month distorts it. The receivables are held at group level in this model; the unit and ageing cuts are in the finance function's own model.

Also published in this run, with no recommendation resting on it

Finding 1

Net Debt / EBITDA 2.18× → 2.61× (+19.70 %) Against a 3.00× Covenant — Net Debt +31.75 % While Trailing-Twelve-Month EBITDA +10.06 %

severity highdirection upnovelty newtrust Abreakdown — (group)

At the end of August 2026, net debt stood at 9,420 M ₺ against 7,150 M ₺ a year earlier (+31.75 %), while trailing-twelve-month EBITDA rose from 3,280 M ₺ to 3,610 M ₺ (+10.06 %). The engine-derived ratio moved from 2.18× to 2.61× — a +19.70 % change in a ratio metric, 2.46× the 8 % ratio threshold — severity high — against the 3.00× covenant value loaded into the model. Net debt is the month-end book value; loans linked to foreign currencies are revalued at the month-end rate, and this model does not separate the revaluation from new borrowing.

Finding 2

Capex Paid Year to Date 1,240 M ₺ Against 1,680 M ₺ Planned (−26.19 %) — the Retail Refurbishment Programme at 310 M ₺ Against 620 M ₺ (−50.00 %) While Logistics Fleet Capex Is Above Plan (+5.79 %)

severity criticaldirection downnovelty newtrust Abreakdown PROGRAMME = Retail refurbishment

Capex paid from January to August 2026 was 1,240 M ₺ against a plan of 1,680 M ₺ (−26.19 %, 5.24× the 5 % plan-deviation threshold). Retail refurbishment carries 310 M ₺ of the 440 M ₺ underspend (70.45 %): it has paid 310 M ₺ against 620 M ₺ planned (−50.00 %, above the 40 % critical line — severity critical); the other programmes together paid 528 M ₺ against 680 M ₺ (−22.35 %), and the logistics fleet programme is above plan at 402 M ₺ against 380 M ₺ (+5.79 %). Whether the refurbishment is late or deferred cannot be read here: this model holds capex paid, not capex committed, so orders placed and not yet invoiced are invisible to it, and a programme that is on schedule but late-invoiced reads as underspent.

What this run could not see.

Committed capex, the currency revaluation inside net debt, the receivables by unit and ageing bucket. The agent wrote a headroom amount from the covenant and the ratio and the sentence was held: the engine derives ratios it is asked for at query time, not amounts an agent computes while composing.

Every number carries an address

In the product each figure binds to an evidence address — envelope, row, cell, check digit — and a number without one is held, not published. The anatomy of a record →

Derived figures show their operation

A change, a share or a gap is computed by the engine and carries its operands; the model never divides. How every number is proved →

AI governance is the publication layer

Eight deterministic gates, the trust tier, badged interpretation, an assumptions strip that cannot be switched off, and the Guard Ledger. Where the model can and cannot reach →

FAQ

Four questions this page is usually asked

01Is this a "CEO dashboard"?

No. It is three scheduled agents reading the finance model and publishing findings and a brief with addresses; the customer's own dashboard is a different thing and the site keeps that word for it.

02Can the CEO Agent read anything the CFO's model does not expose?

No. Its scope is the model's scope; a unit or a line that is not in the model is not readable, and the agent says "not in this model" rather than guessing.

03Can it produce the board pack?

It produces the brief and the findings the pack quotes, each with its evidence address and run link; the pack itself is assembled by people.

04Does the data leave our servers?

No. The runtime installs next to your warehouse; the gateways are read-only; the model receives sealed query results, never the ledger.

Free data discovery study

See which of these signals your own warehouse can carry.

Send us the name of your data platform and the domain you argue about most. We read your semantic model with you and answer in writing: which of the signals on this page your model carries today, which need a change in Axoria Data Studio, and what a four-week pilot would measure. No cost, no sequence — a person replies within two working days.

Request a free data discovery study → Start a 4-week pilot

What the examples assume

The data, the model and the measures behind the three sets

Nothing in a set rests on a source outside the model described here. Open what you want to reconcile.

01Assumed data sources — data an executive office already has (through finance)

Consolidated general ledger by business unit and legal entity (revenue, cost of sales, operating-cost lines, EBITDA, receivables, payables, cash, net debt, capex paid), plan versions (approved budget, reforecasts), the HR mart (headcount and leavers by unit), the customer-experience mart (survey responses by unit), the strategy tool's milestones. Typical warehouse grain: one row per ledger line per month per unit, one row per plan line per version.

02Assumed semantic model — the minimum for the three personas
Measures
revenue · cost_of_sales · gross_margin (engine-derived) · opex by line (personnel, rent, energy, logistics, marketing, other) · ebitda · ebitda_margin (engine-derived) · plan_revenue · plan_ebitda · plan_opex by line · plan_attainment (engine-derived) · receivables · payables · cash · net_debt · ebitda_ttm · net_debt_to_ebitda (engine-derived) · capex_paid · plan_capex · operating_cash_flow · plan_operating_cash_flow · dso (engine-derived) · headcount_avg · leavers_voluntary · nps_responses · nps_score (engine-derived) · milestones_due · milestones_met.
Dimensions
month · business unit · legal entity · cost line · site (store, plant, depot) · customer segment · invoice currency · plan version · initiative. Marked personal and never broken down by: anything below unit level in the HR mart; individual survey respondents.
Data edge
measured by the engine via max(POSTING_DATE) of the consolidated ledger; the model declares it and states which month is closed.
03Assumed KPIs — what the executive committee tracks
KPIDefinitionUnitTypical bandUsual breakdown
Revenue growth (year on year, vs plan)Δ revenue / prior revenue; actual / plan%no single public benchmark [S1201]business unit · region
Gross margin / EBITDA margingross margin / revenue; EBITDA / revenue%37.8 % / 16.6 % US total market [S101] — a reference, not a targetbusiness unit
Plan attainment (revenue, EBITDA, opex)actual / plan, full months only%no public benchmark foundbusiness unit · cost centre
Revenue–margin scissorsrevenue change minus EBITDA changepoints—business unit
Operating cash flow vs planactual / plan, year to date%no public benchmark foundlegal entity
Net debt / EBITDAnet debt / trailing-twelve-month EBITDA×covenant-driven; no public benchmark foundlegal entity
Days sales outstandingreceivables / (revenue / days in period)daysmodel-specificbusiness unit · customer segment
Capex vs plancapex paid / planned, year to date%no public benchmark foundprogramme · business unit
Revenue per employeerevenue / average headcountcurrencysector-bound; secondary compilation [S1202]business unit
Customer NPSpromoters − detractorspointsB2B 38 vs B2C 49 [S1204]segment · business unit
Voluntary attritionvoluntary leavers / average headcount%monthly quits 2.0 % [S405]business unit · tenure band
Employee engagementshare engaged in the survey%20 % global, 31 % US/Canada [S1205]business unit · manager
Strategic milestones on trackmilestones met / due%no public benchmark foundinitiative owner

Related

Where these pages lead

On this site