Service level · Tower to function
Hire-to-Retire first-pass yield
Hire-to-Retire Tower
Committed level
96%
first-pass-yield at or above target · calendar month
Attainment
96.4%
worst period 93.3%
Consequence of a miss
No consequence
Reported and discussed. Nothing changes hands.
Breaches
2
2 with remediation still open
Credit
$0
$0 of it actually paid
The commitment
Who owes what to whom
TypeOperational level
Owed byAI GBS — Hire-to-Retire Tower
Owed toHuman Resources
Measurement windowCalendar month
Effective fromJan 20, 2026
Next reviewJul 12, 2026 — overdue
Signature
Named and dated
Signed byPriya Raman
RoleChief People Officer
Signed onJan 16, 2026
A signature makes this level a commitment somebody can be held to. Without one it is a target that reads like a commitment.
How it is measured
From the work ledger
Counted as cases closed without a correction record against cases closed.
source hcm-core
What a miss costs
No consequence
No consequence attached. This level was written as a quality ambition during tower stand-up and never given a credit clause.
None. A miss here costs the tower nothing.
There is no credit, no fee at risk and no other consequence attached to this level. A miss produces a report and a conversation. That is stated plainly here because a service level with no consequence behaves like a target, and calling it a commitment does not change how it behaves under pressure.
Attainment by period
6 measured periods · floor at 95%
2025 Q4
96.8%
97.2% · target met
2026 Q1
97.6%
98.5% · target met
2026 Q2
99.3%
101.1% · target met
Jun 2026
94.3%
93.4% · target missed
Jul 2026
97.2%
97.8% · target met
Aug 2026
93.3%
91.8% · target missed
The bar scale starts at 85% rather than zero, because every value on a service level sits in the last few points and a zero-based axis would flatten the only part of the range anyone argues about. The floor line is attainment below 95%, which is what opens a breach.
Breach history
2 recorded misses
BRC-0005Aug 2026 · occurred Aug 6, 2026 · detected 10 days ago
measured 91.8 against 96.0
missed by 4.3%
892 units affected
open 15.1 hrs
The planning system returned partial result sets for two days without erroring, so the line processed an incomplete population and the shortfall was found at reconciliation.
contributing: Detection lag of 29 hours before anyone was paged · Measured from the work unit ledger
Source system unavailableNo clause to invokeRemediation open
Ravi Menon, Finance Business Partner, Commercial · remediation due Sep 20, 2026 · still open
Agree the root-cause taxonomy with the tower so that a disputed cause has a defined resolution path instead of stalling.
BRC-0004Jun 2026 · occurred Jun 5, 2026 · detected 2 months ago
measured 93.4 against 96.0
missed by 2.7%
2,354 units affected
open 21.1 hrs
The miss was recorded and the month closed. No root cause was agreed and no owner was assigned, and the record was left open rather than tidied away.
Never establishedNo clause to invokeUnresolved
no owner assigned · still open
Roster a named releaser for the intake quarantine queue across weekends during peak periods.
What this record is, and what it is not
Drill results are measured against a modeled estate on a rehearsal calendar of our own making. Recovery times here are real measurements of a simulation, not evidence that a customer's production estate recovers in the same time.
Attainment, breach detail and credit on this record are modeled. The structure — a named counterparty, a measurement basis that can be checked, a signature, a review date, a consequence, and a breach ledger that records the cause rather than the excuse — is the part intended to survive contact with a real estate.