End-to-end outcomes · Claim to credit
Deduction to settlement
A retailer takes money off an invoice and asserts a reason. Somebody has to decide whether the reason matches an agreement the group actually signed, and then either accept it or claim it back.
Health
What the chain measures
Cycle time, wait and cost are computed on complete chains only. Everything else is computed on every assembled chain and says so.
The chain, stage by stage
3 stages · the wait column is the gap before that stage began, measured on the chains that reached it
| Stage | Document | Function | Tower | System | Reached | Wait before | Stage cycle | Confidence | Joined by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Deduction takenvalue | deduction-claim | Cust Svc | O2C | erp-fi | 170 · 100% | — | 34.8 h | — | Origin 170 |
| 2Promotion checked | trade-promotion | Marketing | A2L | crm | 40 · 24% | 24.8 h | 22.8 h | 0.78 | Inferred 40 |
| 3Credit issued | credit-memo | Finance | O2C | erp-fi | 3 · 2% | 17.7 h | 24.1 h | 0.72 | Inferred 3 |
The deduction and the credit are both financial documents, while the promotion evidence sits in the customer system, so both steps cross a boundary. The customer is named throughout, which is what keeps the matching plausible at all.
The distribution, not the average
Cycle time across the 3 complete chains, in ten equal bands
Fastest 3.5 d, slowest 5.0 d, median 3.9 d, mean 4.1 d. The mean sits above the median, so quoting the average alone would overstate what a typical chain of this service takes.
What the chain costs and carries
Cost is modeled from recorded touches. Value is the amount on the designated value stage only.
The commitment against this outcome
Deduction to settlement inside 21 days · owned by Rafael Duarte
Not measurable from this extract. The commitment runs to 21 days and the extract covers seven, so no chain in the week had the whole commitment available and none could have been seen to miss it. 3 chains did close inside the window, at a median of 94.8 hours, which describes the fast chains and says nothing about the slow ones.
This commitment sits alongside the function level service levels the estate already publishes, not instead of them. Every function inside this chain can hold its own commitment while this one misses.
Who owns the delay
1 boundary disputes touch this service · 0 undecided
When a retailer deducts against a promotion nobody can evidence, the money is written off. Marketing books it as trade investment. Finance books it as leakage. The same money is described two ways in two ledgers.
Trace one chain end to end
The 3 complete chains carrying the largest amounts. Open one to see every document, the wait before each stage and the moments a person intervened.
Trade deduction is the least owned money in a consumer goods group. It is raised by a customer, evidenced by marketing and written off by finance, and the three rarely meet.
An outcome is assembled, not recorded. No source system in this estate stamps a single reference across a purchase requisition, the order raised against it and the receipt that closes it, so the chains on these pages were stitched together after the fact. Where both documents sit in the same source system the chain is keyed and the join is exact. Where it crosses a system boundary the chain is matched on the party, the market, the region and whether the timing is plausible, and it is labeled inferred with its confidence shown. Where the two sides name no party in common the only evidence left is place and timing, and the chain is labeled cohort and confidence is capped low on purpose. A cohort chain is a hypothesis about which documents belong together. Read it as one.
The ledger behind these chains is one week, 10 to 16 August 2026, which is 168 hours. A chain that had not finished when the week ended is open, not late: the week simply stopped watching it. A chain whose commitment falls after the end of the week could never have been seen to miss, so its service level reads not measurable rather than holding. Nothing on these pages should be read as a monthly or annual attainment.
Cost to serve is modeled from the touches the ledger recorded, not billed from a timesheet. Every touch is priced at 11 minutes of a person at a loaded 58 dollars an hour, and every stage carries 1.10 dollars of system cost and 0.42 dollars of inference. Handoff cost is priced separately: waiting is held at 0.90 dollars an item an hour, rework at 34 minutes, and duplicated data entry at the re-keying minutes recorded against that handoff. Change any of those six rates and every dollar on these pages moves.