Function cockpit
Supply Chain
Continuous sensing and bounded replanning, with plan stability enforced.
Phase: Phase 3 — Functional orchestration
Sense demand, inventory, capacity and disruption continuously; execute bounded replanning inside stability limits; and put material service trade-offs in front of humans.
Trust score
0
Touchless
0%
Human review
0%
Override rate
0%
Capacity released
20-30% inventory reduction and 5-20% logistics-cost savings (aspiration, not additive)
Accountable human
Chief Supply Chain Officer
CoS agent: Supply Chain Chief of Staff
Autonomy, trust, and throughput at a glance
Health
Is this function holding
Four readings with a printed rule behind each, then the outcome measures the function is judged on. A reading without a rule is decoration.
Autonomy against target
72%
11 points short of the 83% target
Trust score
86
at or above the 85 floor for a rung promotion
Touchless rate
74%
26% of items still take a person somewhere in the run
Override rate
8%
people are reversing the agents often enough that the ceiling is doing real work
Forecast error (MAPE)
-4.2pp9.4%
Weighted across A and B items
Service level
+1.6pp97.8%
On-time in-full against committed dates
Plan stability
+11pp94%
Guard against agent-induced order amplification
Expedite cost
-18%412$K MTD
Premium freight within approved thresholds
Open disruptions
-36events
Average age 14 hours
Operations
What the function is running
The roster and where it sits on the ladder, the split between what runs alone and what a person still signs, and a slice of the floor as it stands.
Where this roster sits on the autonomy ladder
A0 assisted through A4 autonomous. Moving an agent up a rung is a governance decision, not a config change.
Agents
10
Active now
10
Tasks / 24h
8,722
Mean success
93%
Work mix, as it stands
How the function's volume divides between the agents and the people.
Runs end to end without a person
74%
cleared inside the ceiling, no queue, no signature
A person reads it before it clears
18%
evidence posted, a named reviewer signs
A person reverses the agent
8%
the agent proposed, the human decided otherwise
Capacity released
20-30% inventory reduction and 5-20% logistics-cost savings (aspiration, not additive)
What runs without a person
Committed to autonomy inside a defined ceiling.
- Demand-signal updates and forecast refresh
- Inventory stockout and excess alerting
- Bounded replenishment within min/max and budget
- Standard carrier allocation and ETA communication
- Disruption triage and low-impact rerouting
What stays with people
Judgment, accountability, and anything a regulator would ask a human about.
- Network design and service policy
- Capacity commitments and plant shutdown
- Critical customer allocation
- Major rerouting and premium freight above threshold
- Safety decisions and geopolitical response
On the floor right now
A slice of live work. The full board carries every item.
- SCM-3320Escalated
Port closure recovery — three costed options
Recover · CSCO · 1h 36m old · 41 shipments
- SCM-3321Autonomous
Replenishment run — EMEA distribution centers
Replenish · Supply Chain CoS · 18m old · 1,120 orders
- SCM-3322Escalated
Node paused on instability signature
Plan · Planning lead · 3h 28m old · Node DC-14
- SCM-3323Autonomous
Carrier allocation — week 34 outbound
Move · Supply Chain CoS · 41m old · 964 loads
- SCM-3324Drafted
Scenario twin — dual-source resin strategy
Plan · Planning lead · 4h 24m old · $4.1M cash impact
- SCM-3325Awaiting human
Tier-1 continuity assessment — Meridian
Sense · CPO and CSCO · 6h 12m old · 3 SKUs at risk
Actions
What this function is asking a person to do
Ordered by size. Each figure is a live count from this function's own work and governance records, not a target.
3
Items awaiting a person
queued against a named human, clock running
1
Governance decisions pending
an agent stopped at a gate and asked
0
Items older than 48 hours
on the floor long enough to be a problem
0
Agents below 80 confidence
running, but not at a level that supports a promotion
Brakes available right now
What a named human can pull today to stop this function, without waiting for an engineer.
- Sensor or telemetry inconsistency
- Unstable repeated replanning (bullwhip signature)
- Unusual order amplification across nodes
- Safety-critical material movement without clearance
- Plan divergence from system of record
Live observability
What has actually been decided, and where each agent stops
A dashboard that shows only outcomes hides the decisions that produced them. This is the governance record as written, and the ceiling every agent is held to.
Governance record
Most recent first. Each entry names the actor and the call.
ETA updates issued to 214 customers
Auto-executedControl-Tower Communicator issued factual revised ETAs using approved templates. No commitment or goodwill language included.
notify · Control-Tower Communicator · materiality low
Port closure recovery options presented
PendingDisruption Agent modeled three recovery paths for a 72-hour port closure affecting 41 shipments. Cost and service impact quantified for CSCO decision.
escalation · Chief Supply Chain Officer · materiality high
Replanning loop halted on instability signature
ContainedPlan-stability monitor detected four replans of the same node within six hours. Autonomous replenishment paused for that node pending planner review.
oversight · Supply Chain Chief of Staff · materiality medium
Premium freight above threshold
ApprovedLogistics Agent proposed $86,000 in premium freight to protect a committed launch date. Held for logistics-director approval with alternative options attached.
approval · Logistics director · materiality high
Escalation ceilings
Past the line the agent stops and hands the decision to the named human with the evidence attached.
- A4
Supply Chain Chief of Staff
Ceiling: No customer allocation or capacity commitment authority
Then: Any trade-off affecting a customer commitment escalates with a quantified options pack.
- A3
Demand Sensing Agent
Ceiling: Approved signal sources only
Then: Structural demand shifts beyond tolerance escalate to planning leadership.
- A3
Inventory Agent
Ceiling: Alerting and recommendation
Then: Allocation conflicts route to the Chief of Staff for adjudication.
- A3
Replenishment Agent
Ceiling: Within approved min/max and weekly plan variance under 10%
Then: Changes exceeding 10% of a weekly plan require planner approval.
- A2
Production Planner
Ceiling: Proposal only
Then: Schedule changes affecting committed orders require operations approval.
Is policy and strategy coming to fruition
Does the intent above this function reach the work inside it
Counted per sub-function, where each step only counts if the step before it did. A policy that never reaches a running workflow has not landed, however well it reads.
Chain from stance to transaction
4 of 11 sub-functions carry a ratified position, an active policy and a live workflow
Ratified position
5
of 11 sub-functions — a stance the leadership signed, not a draft
...and an active policy
4
a rule in force, with a version and an approver
...reaching a live workflow
4
the rule reaches something that actually runs
...and landing in a GBS tower
4
the run is executed on the shared transaction spine
7 of the 11 sub-functions are executing at volume without the full chain behind them. They run to a general standard rather than to a rule with a version and an approver, and the gap first appears at the position step.
What this page is, and what it is not
Every reading here is computed live from this function's own records, which makes it exact and makes it narrow. Volumes, unit costs, autonomy and trust are modeled: none has been reconciled against an enterprise resource planning system, a service management tool or a payroll register. Read the outcome measures as the shape of the argument, not as an audited result.
McKinsey-related evidence reports 20-30% inventory reduction and 5-20% logistics-cost savings in AI-enabled planning and distribution. Academic work identifies an “agent bullwhip” in which stochastic decisions amplify across facilities and time; repeated sampling or majority voting does not reliably solve this policy-level instability. Plan-stability limits and deterministic constraints are therefore mandatory before autonomous replenishment.