LensReading which lens this session carries.

End-to-end outcomes · one chain

OI-ITP-0070 — Invoice to pay

One invoice followed from a supplier invoice is received to the payment clears and reconciles against the bank statement, 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.

Invoice to pay — all chains
State
Closed
Every stage of the service was found and the last one finished inside the sampled week.
Chain cycle
4.7 d
Wall clock, first stage start to last stage end
Of which waiting
2.3 d
49% of the chain was queue, not work
Cost to serve
$68.36
6 touches over 3 stages
A person intervened
1×
At one stage, marked below
Match confidence
0.62
Cohort

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

Identity, counterparty and the correlation key

The unit
Merrow Production Services
India · Asia Pacific · INR
Started Tue, Aug 11, 00:07, ended Sat, Aug 15, 16:00.
How the stages were joined
Cohort · 0.62
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 2 joins below, not their average.
How much of the service ran
3 / 3
2 functions · 2 towers
Every stage the service defines was found for this unit.

The chain, stage by stage

3 stages · 2.3 d waiting · 2.4 d in work

01Invoice received a person intervened
CG-S2P-002428Supplier invoiceap-automationProcurementS2PKatarzyna Nowak
The chain starts here. This document is the event the business recognizes as the beginning.
In work
2.2 d
Touches
6
Handling
manual
Join
Origin
On the document
$3,863
Handoff wait before this stage: 31.2 h — nothing was being done to the invoice for that time.
02Payment released
CG-S2P-002256Payment run itemtreasuryFinanceS2P
The document crosses from ap-automation into treasury, where no reference survives. Matched on the trading party, the region, a gap of 31.2 hours against an expected 4 to 72.
In work
2.0 h
Touches
0
Handling
touchless
Join
Inferred 0.86
On the document
$35
Handoff wait before this stage: 23.6 h — nothing was being done to the invoice for that time.
03Cash reconciled
CG-R2R-006383Bank reconciliation itembank-gatewayFinanceR2R
At least one side of this step records no party at all, so there is nothing to join on beyond place and timing. The link rests on cohort evidence only, matched on the market, the region, a gap of 23.6 hours against an expected 2 to 48. It is the weakest kind of claim in this catalog and its confidence is capped accordingly.
In work
2.5 h
Touches
0
Handling
touchless
Join
Cohort 0.62
On the document
$6,984
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 3 stages this invoice passed through. This service counts value once, at invoice received, which puts $3,863 against this chain.

Where a person intervened

1 of 3 stages were not touchless

Invoice received
manual
Katarzyna Nowak · Procurement · Source-to-Pay · 6 touches over 2.2 d
Across the 131 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
2.3 d
49% of elapsed time
In work
2.4 d
51% of elapsed time
Waiting and work are an exhaustive split of the 4.7 d this chain took — every hour is in one bucket or the other. The longest single wait was 31.2 h before payment released.
Cost to serve, $68.36
6 touches at 11 minutes of loaded time each$63.80
3 stages of inference and system cost$4.56
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

131 complete invoice to pay chains, 10–16 August 2026

this chain sits at the 89th percentile
2
12
19
32
26
22
14
2
1
1
23.5 hten equal bands of chain cycle time7.0 d
Median chain
3.4 d
p25 2.8 d · p75 4.2 d
Slowest tenth
4.7 d
worst seen 7.0 d
Median waiting
2.6 d
76% of the median chain is queue
Median cost
$15.19
p90 $57.73
The mean of 3.5 d sits above the median of 3.4 d, which is why the distribution is drawn rather than reported as an average: the gap between the median and the slowest tenth is 32.1 h, and it is that tail, not the average, that customers of this service actually feel. The commitment is 168 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 both started and finished inside that week, so its cycle time is a measurement.