LensReading which lens this session carries.

End-to-end outcomes · one chain

OI-CTC-0154 — Claim to credit

One claim followed from a retailer deducts against an invoice to the deduction is settled or recovered by credit, across every function and tower it touched. Cycle time, cost and touch count below are measured on the assembled chain — start of the first stage to end of the last — not summed from the segments. 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.

Claim to credit — all chains
State
Failed
A stage in the chain failed outright in the ledger.
Chain cycle
2.6 d
Wall clock, first stage start to last stage end
Of which waiting
29.5 h
48% of the chain was queue, not work
Cost to serve
$24.31
2 touches over 2 stages
A person intervened
1×
At one stage, marked below
Match confidence
0.76
Inferred

What this chain is, and how sure we are it is one chain

Identity, counterparty and the correlation key

The unit
Pinehill Distribution
Nigeria · Africa and Middle East · NGN
Started Thu, Aug 13, 23:26, and has not ended inside the observation window.
How the stages were joined
Inferred · 0.76
The chain crosses a system boundary, but both sides name parties from a materially overlapping master, so it was matched on party, market, region and lag plausibility.
A chain is only as sure as its weakest join, so the figure above is the minimum across the 1 joins below, not their average.
How much of the service ran
2 / 3
2 functions · 2 towers
1 of the 3 stages were never found; the chain stops after promotion checked. That is the chain as observed, not proof the work did not happen elsewhere.

The chain, stage by stage

2 stages · 29.5 h waiting · 32.3 h in work

01Deduction taken
CG-O2C-000377Deduction and chargeback claimerp-fiCust SvcO2C
The chain starts here. This document is the event the business recognizes as the beginning.
In work
18.4 h
Touches
0
Handling
touchless
Join
Origin
On the document
$11,843
Handoff wait before this stage: 29.5 h — nothing was being done to the claim for that time.
02Promotion checked a person intervened
CG-A2L-014126Trade promotion plancrmMarketingA2LAnneke de Vries
The document crosses from erp-fi into crm, where no reference survives. Matched on the trading party, a gap of 29.5 hours against an expected 4 to 48.
In work
13.9 h
Touches
2
Handling
assisted
Join
Inferred 0.76
On the document
$7,130
The amounts in the right-hand column are what each document carried, and they are deliberately not added up — the same money is written down once at each of the 2 stages this claim passed through. This service counts value once, at deduction taken, which puts $11,843 against this chain.

Where a person intervened

1 of 2 stages were not touchless

Promotion checked
assisted
Anneke de Vries · Marketing · Awareness-to-Lead · 2 touches over 13.9 h
Across the 3 complete chains of this service the median is 1, so this one sits on the middle. A stage counts here when its handling is assisted or manual; touchless stages are excluded.

What the time and the money went on

The chain decomposed

Waiting
29.5 h
48% of elapsed time
In work
32.3 h
52% of elapsed time
Waiting and work are an exhaustive split of the 2.6 d this chain took — every hour is in one bucket or the other. The longest single wait was 29.5 h before promotion checked.
Cost to serve, $24.31
2 touches at 11 minutes of loaded time each$21.27
2 stages of inference and system cost$3.04
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.
No stage on this chain raised an exception.

The same chain for the whole week, as a distribution

3 complete claim to credit chains, 10–16 August 2026

this chain sits at the 0th percentile
1
1
1
3.5 dten equal bands of chain cycle time5.0 d
Median chain
3.9 d
p25 3.7 d · p75 4.5 d
Slowest tenth
4.8 d
worst seen 5.0 d
Median waiting
45.1 h
48% of the median chain is queue
Median cost
$25.83
p90 $25.83
The mean of 4.1 d sits above the median of 3.9 d, which is why the distribution is drawn rather than reported as an average: the gap between the median and the slowest tenth is 19.4 h, and it is that tail, not the average, that customers of this service actually feel. This chain is not complete, so it is not in the 3 above. The commitment is 504 hours; no chain started early enough in a one-week window to be judged against it.
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. This chain had not finished when the window closed, so its cycle time is a floor, not a duration — it is right-censored, and it is not counted as a breach anywhere on this platform.