Prove · baseline BL-029
Supplier Onboarding
Supplier Onboarding, all regions, as run before the agents were switched on. Owner at the time of measurement: Director, Supplier Management.
How it was measured
System extract
Sign-off
Who accepted this as the number to beat
Where the benefit lands
Account and cost center this baseline reconciles to
Benefit lines resting on this baseline
10 lines · $13.68m claimed · $10.88m realized · $6.96m verified
| Period | Category | Claimed | Realized | Verified | Status | Variance | Journal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY25 Q3 | Outsourced cost | $1.76m | $1.36m | not verified | Not verified | Scope Scope drifted after the baseline was signed. The added work is real but it is not this baseline. | not posted |
| FY25 Q4 | Outsourced cost | $2.56m | $1.64m | $1.49m | Partly verified | Rate The blended labor rate used in the claim sits above the rate actually charged to the cost center. | JV-2025Q4-0062 |
| FY26 Q1 | Outsourced cost | $3.27m | $3.21m | $2.98m | Partly verified | Timing Benefit landed one period later than claimed. The run rate is intact; the period attribution was wrong. | JV-2026Q1-0063 |
| FY26 Q2 | Outsourced cost | $3.90m | $2.89m | $2.48m | Partly verified | Volume Seasonal volume ran ahead of baseline, which flatters the realized figure rather than the claim. | JV-2026Q2-0064 |
| FY26 Q3 | Outsourced cost | $2.18m | $1.79m | not verified | Period open | Period open The period is not closed. The realized figure is a run rate, not a result, and nothing in it has been verified. | not posted |
| FY25 Q3 | Quality | $387.7k | $240.4k | not verified | Non cash | Non cash This is a cycle time or quality improvement. It has no journal entry, so it is carried outside the amount reconciled to the ledger rather than converted into a saving. | not posted |
| FY25 Q4 | Quality | $563.1k | $388.5k | not verified | Non cash | Non cash This is a cycle time or quality improvement. It has no journal entry, so it is carried outside the amount reconciled to the ledger rather than converted into a saving. | not posted |
| FY26 Q1 | Quality | $720.0k | $432.0k | not verified | Non cash | Non cash This is a cycle time or quality improvement. It has no journal entry, so it is carried outside the amount reconciled to the ledger rather than converted into a saving. | not posted |
| FY26 Q2 | Quality | $858.4k | $626.7k | not verified | Non cash | Non cash This is a cycle time or quality improvement. It has no journal entry, so it is carried outside the amount reconciled to the ledger rather than converted into a saving. | not posted |
| FY26 Q3 | Quality | $480.0k | $441.6k | not verified | Non cash | Non cash This is a cycle time or quality improvement. It has no journal entry, so it is carried outside the amount reconciled to the ledger rather than converted into a saving. | not posted |
A benefit realization ledger reconciled to a general ledger needs the customer’s actual baseline figures and account structure. Modeled numbers demonstrate the instrument and prove nothing about the business case.
The measurement window ran FY24 Q4, thirteen weeks over a sample of 194,246. That sample size is on the page because a baseline drawn from twelve cases and one drawn from forty thousand are not the same instrument, and averaging them into a single confidence figure would hide which one you are looking at.
3 of 5 cash lines resting on this baseline carry a journal reference. A benefit line with no journal reference has not touched the general ledger, so it is shown as claimed rather than counted as realized cash.