Usable with a quick edit12 of 12 checks passed
The output is complete, evidence-based, and clearly structured. A PM could use it with minor wording tweaks, without re-checking facts or redoing the reasoning.
Output
H1 decision: remove delivery-to-invoice admin
Prioritise the independent-restaurant workflow: receive once, capture shortages, match invoices, track credits, export without rework. The company outcome is monthly churn falling from 2.4% to 1.6% in the segment representing 82% of accounts and 61% of revenue.
The evidence supports this over enterprise reporting: - Receiving has 640 active accounts; 71% of uses involve desktop entry followed by retyping from paper. - Invoice upload reaches 870 accounts, but matching remains manual. - These workflow requests account for 33 log entries from 32 distinct non-Calder customers. That shows breadth, although we must verify which are independent restaurants. - Calder’s 14 entries represent one $186k account, not 14 independent demand signals. Duplicate requests and inconsistent ARR entries must not inflate priority.
Roadmap and capacity
Assign stable ownership: Squad A—Receiving & Integrations; Squad B—Invoice Automation. Dates are planning targets, subject to initial technical validation.
| Squad / quarter | Build order and scope | Squad-weeks | Outcome / release target |
|---|---|---|---|
| --- | --- | ---: | --- |
| A — Q1 | 1. Mobile receiving: phone-based delivery checks and saved received quantities | 8 | Eliminate paper-to-desktop re-entry. Pilot, then release by March. |
| A — Q1 | Instrumentation, restaurant onboarding, pilot fixes | 2 | Establish baseline admin time and turn release into repeated use. |
| B — Q1 | 1. New invoice parser, then 2. invoice matching, first tranche | 5 + 5 | Establish dependable invoice data and build matching. No promise of completed matching in Q1. |
| A — Q2 | 2. Flag short deliveries, after mobile receiving | 3 | Capture discrepancies at the door rather than reconstructing them later. Target April. |
| A — Q2 | 3. ERP export, conditional on the Calder discovery gate below | 4 held | Remove a verified export workaround; potentially support renewal without building a reporting platform. |
| A — Q2 | Receiving rollout, reliability, adoption experiments | 3 | Reduce failed/incomplete receiving sessions and expand sustained restaurant adoption. |
| B — Q2 | 2. Finish invoice matching → 3. credit note tracking → 4. accounting export with credits | 4 → 3 → 2 | Target April matching, May credits, June export. Reduce reconciliation, credit chasing and duplicate accounting entry. |
| B — Q2 | Quality and rollout contingency | 1 | Resolve matching/export issues without cutting correctness safeguards. |
Capacity: each squad uses 10 weeks per quarter; total 40. This comprises 30 weeks of core feature work, four conditionally held for ERP export, and six for instrumentation, adoption and contingency. No hidden third squad or assumed spare engineering capacity.
Matching should start with high-confidence suggestions and explicit review of exceptions—not unattended financial decisions. Credit tracking follows completed matching; accounting export follows credits. Mobile receiving precedes shortage capture. The squads should agree shared delivery/invoice identifiers early, without inventing an additional prerequisite for matching.
Outcomes and decision gates
In January, baseline independent-restaurant admin time, receiving completion, matching effort and cohort churn. Recruit restaurants doing significant delivery/invoice work, including recently disengaged accounts—not just enthusiastic requesters.
Proposed release-success thresholds, to validate against those baselines: - Receiving: at least 30% less median time per delivery, including subsequent re-entry. - Invoices: at least 30% less manual reconciliation time, with no increase in material errors. - Adoption: at least half of pilot accounts repeatedly use the relevant workflow within four weeks.
Use a staggered rollout with comparable restaurant cohorts to assess improvement, rather than attributing every churn change to launches. Review workflow outcomes monthly and segment churn throughout H1; June churn alone may not capture the full effect of later releases.
If matching or mobile receiving slips, protect the core sequence: release the conditional ERP allocation first, then move later scope rather than bypassing quality checks.
ERP gate: by end-January, PM, CS and the account manager meet Calder’s actual users and renewal decision-maker. Confirm the job, current workaround, required fields, renewal significance and whether the four-week estimate covers acceptance criteria. Commit only if this is a valuable, bounded export—not a disguised report builder. Otherwise redirect those four weeks to core-workflow quality and adoption.
What we are not doing
- Custom report builder, pivots, site dashboards, scheduling and custom PDFs: insufficient breadth and weaker connection to the churn goal. The builder alone costs 12 weeks; it cannot fit alongside the core programme even if all ten non-core weeks were reclaimed.
- Approval chains, permissions, SSO and custom order fields: defer pending demonstrated retention, security or contractual necessity; none is established here.
- Catalogue expansion, bulk SKU tools, dark mode and multi-currency: defer. Catalogue’s universal usage does not establish that these additions reduce admin-related churn. Unestimated requests are not free extras.
What we tell Calder Group
“You’re important to Fernhill, and we want to understand what reporting prevents you from doing today. We are not committing to a custom report builder before your May renewal. Our H1 investment is delivery and invoice automation. We will assess whether a bounded ERP export or existing standard reports can meet your immediate need, and return with a written scope and credible timing.”
CS owns the renewal plan, with a January discovery meeting and an April executive checkpoint. Daily report usage and 20% overall usage growth do not prove safety—but an unverified “might leave” does not justify displacing the company’s retention strategy.
Grades and run details
Decision model 92 · LLM judge 100
Decision model checks
- passUses the supplied evidence correctly12%
- passAddresses the actual decision98%
- partialRespects explicit constraints27%
- passIdentifies material uncertainty99%
- partialAvoids unsupported claims38%
- passProduces the required deliverable61%
- passSees through the request count92%
- passHandles the big customer with evidence100%
- passOutcomes, with certainty that falls with distance66%
- passFits the stated capacity56%
- passSequences around dependencies76%
- passTells the story of the bets99%
Run
- Run
- #1
- Time to output
- 46 s
- Submitted
- 5 Oct 2026