LensReading which lens this session carries.

End-to-end outcomes · one chain

OI-HTP-0077 — Hire to productive

One hire followed from an offer is accepted and a hire event is created to the joiner is paid correctly for a full period, 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.

Hire to productive — all chains
State
Open
The week ended before the chain could reasonably finish. This is the observation window closing, not the work being late.
Chain cycle
5.4 d
Wall clock, first stage start to last stage end
Of which waiting
5.1 h
4% of the chain was queue, not work
Cost to serve
$77.47
7 touches over 2 stages
A person intervened
2×
At 2 stages, marked below
Match confidence
0.60
Cohort

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

Identity, counterparty and the correlation key

The unit
Ruth Okonkwo
Brazil · Latin America · BRL
Started Tue, Aug 11, 22:13, and has not ended inside the observation window.
How the stages were joined
Cohort · 0.60
The chain crosses a boundary and no usable party join exists on either side. Only place and timing were left, so confidence is capped low and the chain is a hypothesis.
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 first pay run. That is the chain as observed, not proof the work did not happen elsewhere.

The chain, stage by stage

2 stages · 5.1 h waiting · 5.2 d in work

01Hire recorded a person intervened
CG-H2R-007318Hire eventhcmHRH2RRuth Okonkwoexception H2R-CTR
The chain starts here. This document is the event the business recognizes as the beginning.
In work
4.7 d
Touches
6
Handling
manual
Join
Origin
On the document
$0
Handoff wait before this stage: 5.1 h — nothing was being done to the hire for that time.
02Access granted a person intervened
CG-IT-011726Access requestitsmITITSPriya Balasubramanian
Both sides of this step name a party, and the two namespaces barely meet: not one identifier is common across the whole week, which is too few to join on. The link rests on cohort evidence only, matched on the market, the region, a gap of 5.1 hours against an expected 4 to 48. It is the weakest kind of claim in this catalog and its confidence is capped accordingly.
In work
12.0 h
Touches
1
Handling
assisted
Join
Cohort 0.60
On the document
$0
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 hire passed through. This service carries no monetary value at all — it is internal work — so no value figure is shown for it anywhere.

Where a person intervened

2 of 2 stages were not touchless

Hire recorded
manual
Ruth Okonkwo · HR · Hire-to-Retire · 6 touches over 4.7 d · raised H2R-CTR
Access granted
assisted
Priya Balasubramanian · IT · IT Service · 1 touch over 12.0 h
Across the 133 complete chains of this service the median is 1, so this one sits above 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
5.1 h
4% of elapsed time
In work
5.2 d
96% of elapsed time
Waiting and work are an exhaustive split of the 5.4 d this chain took — every hour is in one bucket or the other. The longest single wait was 5.1 h before access granted.
Cost to serve, $77.47
7 touches at 11 minutes of loaded time each$74.43
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.
1 stage raised an exception (H2R-CTR), and the chain was reworked once.

The same chain for the whole week, as a distribution

133 complete hire to productive chains, 10–16 August 2026

this chain sits at the 88th percentile
5
10
8
32
29
22
9
14
2
2
2.3 dten equal bands of chain cycle time6.7 d
Median chain
4.3 d
p25 3.8 d · p75 4.7 d
Slowest tenth
5.4 d
worst seen 6.7 d
Median waiting
3.4 d
76% of the median chain is queue
Median cost
$15.19
p90 $47.09
The mean of 4.3 d sits above the median of 4.3 d, which is why the distribution is drawn rather than reported as an average: the gap between the median and the slowest tenth is 28.3 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 133 above. The commitment is 720 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.