Independent investment and delivery plan

FeasibilityStudy

Halden Wyke Consulting

From a survey instruction or a framework call-off to an approved, issued document.
A clear plan for the systems, people and decisions in between.

Business priorities

Systems and processes

Independent assessment

Delivery plan

Your team chooses the route

Company-wide context

Everyday systems and information.

Two end-to-end reviews

Client reporting and Bids and proposals.

Three delivery routes

Training, custom builds and the Efficiency Programme.

Prepared for Halden Wyke Consulting. Commercial in confidence. Version 1.0, 2026-09-16.

The decision

Start with client reporting.Build from there.

A staged plan for Halden Wyke Consulting, not a company-wide technology replacement.

Recommended route

Efficiency Programme

Two or more builds are worth making and the team needs capability alongside them, so one coordinated programme avoids paying twice for the same foundations.

Keep professional judgement

The assistant prepares and flags. Your team approves.

Keep the existing systems

Improve the handovers, not the whole estate.

Release senior capacity

Assign it to client delivery and review.

£10,000

per month + VAT

Six months · £60,000 total supplier fee

£219.3k

modelled first-year capacity value

Against £141,600 of total resource cost

The value is employment-cost equivalent, not cash profit. The modelled resource cost is recovered in month 8. Model and sensitivities are in Appendix B.

Training

£36,000

12 tailored days. The team applies approved tools.

Custom-Built Systems

£47,000

2 defined builds with handover, plus the training day.

Efficiency Programme · recommended

£60,000

Builds, training and six months of support in one programme.

Fees exclude VAT. Each route is complete and usable on its own.

Scope and evidence

Broad context.Two complete process reviews.

One light business-wide review, followed by the selected areas from their true start to finish.

Light review · company-wide

Microsoft 365Excel and spreadsheetsRevit and AutoCADSharePoint document storeAccounts systemExisting AI use

The everyday systems, ownership, restrictions and information routes around the selected processes.

Deep-dive area

Client reporting

confirm → collect → record → prepare → check → issue

Start: An agreed survey or reporting instruction.
Finish: An approved, issued report.

Deep-dive area

Bids and proposals

capture → qualify → read → prepare → review → submit

Start: A framework call-off or a client enquiry.
Finish: A submitted response, or a recorded loss.

Evidence behind the assessment

People

Operations sponsor, reporting lead, bid lead, document owner and system owner.

Records reviewed

Process accounts, approved templates, workload records and the tool inventory.

Scope boundary

No finance-process deep dive, no technical or design review, no enterprise IT audit.

Assessment only. No solution testing. No prototypes, builds, integrations or live configuration form part of the study. Future performance remains forecast until checked during paid delivery.

3 evidence modules are active for this study; they are listed in Appendix D.

The operating picture

Improve the handovers.Keep the core systems.

The friction sits between existing tools: information is gathered and checked again for each output.

Business

Building surveying, project management and cost consultancy

Delivery

Fee-based professional appointments

Team in scope

160 people in Manchester, Leeds and London

Client reporting

Microsoft 365, approved report templates

Site records, drafts and issued reports

Bids and proposals

Microsoft 365, approved bid library

Call-off briefs, responses and submissions

Documents and knowledge

SharePoint, project folders

Approved material and versioned records

Commercial and finance

Accounts system, Excel

Fees, costs and management information

Technical production

Revit, AutoCAD

Drawings and measured information

Team AI use

Company-approved tools

Occasional use by a few people, no agreed rules

Deep-dive areaContext review only

Retain

Approved report and bid templates, reviewer sign-off and the existing project record.

Resolve first

Document ownership, current versions, and what client material may be used in an approved tool.

Before either build: Name each document owner, record the current version and permitted use, and confirm that no client or confidential information leaves the approved tenant.

System inventory as described by the client. No integration has been tested in this study.

Priorities

Put preparation first.

Start with recurring effort and controlled information. Reuse the same foundations in the next area.

NOW

First priority

Client reporting

Organise site evidence and draft the report with sources. The surveyor retains findings and approval.

W01 · largest recurring preparation workload · document controls first

Second priority

Bids and proposals

Draft from the stated requirements and current approved material. The director retains fees and terms.

W02 · builds on the same approved document library

LATER

Not commissioned

Fees and management reporting

A later review, outside the two assessed areas. No extra build or benefit is included.

Beyond the two assessed areas · separate decision required

Alongside implementation

Practical team training, followed by workflow-specific handover when each build is ready.

What not to automate

Professional findings

Do not let a draft infer survey conclusions or repair advice.

Commercial authority

Do not let a draft set fees, accept terms or make promises to a client.

Useful now: Name each document owner, record the current version and permitted use, and confirm that no client or confidential information leaves the approved tenant.

Client reporting · current state

From an agreed survey or reporting instructionto an approved, issued report.

Turn a survey instruction into an approved, issued report.

Project lead

Confirm the instruction

Record the agreed reporting purpose, estate and output.

Coordinator

Collect the records

Gather estate records, prior reports and current versions.

Version hunting

Surveyor

Record the findings

Capture site notes, observations and photograph references.

Surveyor

Prepare the report

Assemble evidence and draft into the approved format.

Repeated collation

Reviewer

Check and approve

Resolve gaps, validate findings and approve the report.

Gaps found late

Coordinator

Issue and archive

Send the approved version and retain the issue record.

Full inputs, outputs, controls and exception routes: Appendix A.

reports each week

Recurring workload across commercial, education and healthcare estates

125 h

current team effort / week

Collection, drafting and review

people in this workflow

3 coordinators, 6 surveyors, 1 reviewer

Evidence is fragmented before the draft begins. Earlier gap detection should reduce repeated collation, not replace observation or judgement.

What already works well: The issued report is a controlled record, and every amendment gets its own version.

Client reporting · proposed state

A traceable findings draft that preserves the chain from site evidence to professional conclusion.

Records are organised into the approved format, sources stay traceable and gaps are visible before professional review.

Survey records and photographs

Approved report templates

Survey record assistant

Referenced findings draft

Surveyor reviews and approves

Keep human

Survey findings, technical conclusions, recommendations and permission to issue.

Deliver

One report template, a source list, a gap register and a controlled review handover.

1,650 h

annual capacity released

Modelled steady use

£79,200

annual capacity equivalent

Not a cash saving · model in Appendix B

37.5 hours released each active weekof 125 current team hours

W01 · fixed build fee £6,000 + VAT. No photograph diagnosis, no technical calculations, no autonomous client commitments, no replacement of the responsible professional.

Bids and proposals · current state

From a framework call-off or a client enquiryto a submitted response, or a recorded loss.

Turn a framework call-off into a compliant submission or a recorded loss.

Coordinator

Capture the call-off

Log the call-off, the client and the return date.

Incomplete records

Bid lead

Qualify the fit

Confirm service, deadline and a reason to pursue.

Bid lead

Read the requirements

Extract the compliance, quality and pricing requirements.

Repeated chasing

Coordinator

Prepare the response

Assemble approved material against each requirement.

Repeated drafting

Director

Review and authorise

Check compliance, fee, terms and delivery capacity.

Approval queue

Bid lead

Submit and close

Submit, follow up and record the award or the loss.

Full inputs, outputs, controls and exception routes: Appendix A.

call-off responses each week

Recurring framework workload

70 h

current team effort / week

Requirement reading, drafting and review

people in this workflow

2 coordinators, 3 bid and technical staff, 1 director

The same approved material is assembled against similar requirements every week. A controlled library comes before assisted drafting.

What already works well: Director authorisation is consistent and every submission is recorded against its call-off.

Bids and proposals · proposed state

A complete first response against the stated requirements.With the commercial decision left with the director.

A draft starts from the actual requirements, flags missing inputs and reuses only approved material. The bid lead still submits and follows up.

Call-off brief and requirements

Approved bid library

Call-off bid assistant

Referenced response draft

Director reviews and approves

Keep human

Scope, fees, exclusions, terms, capacity commitments and final submission.

Deliver

One response template, approved source references and a missing-input list.

792 h

annual capacity released

Modelled steady use

£38,016

annual capacity equivalent

Not a cash saving · model in Appendix B

18 hours released each active weekof 70 current team hours

W02 · fixed build fee £6,000 + VAT. No new bid system, no data migration, no historic archive cleansing, no portal automation.

Training and adoption

Useful capabilityacross the team.

Practical habits around everyday tasks and approved tools, without weakening professional checking.

Tailored cohort

120people

12 cohorts · 1 practical day each

Client correspondence
Draft, check and adapt to context
Meeting notes and actions
Turn approved notes into clear actions
Spreadsheet checking
Check figures and explain differences

£36,000

+ VAT · tailored · 12 cohorts of up to 10

8.6 min

net daily improvement per active person to cover the resource cost in year one

Per active person, at the modelled first-year ramp

Different roles. Relevant application.

People	Practical focus
Coordination and support	Clear correspondence, accurate actions and dependable checking.
Surveyors, project and cost staff	Source-led routine analysis and explanations within their authority.

Separate benefits: General training excludes report and call-off preparation. Workflow-specific training is delivered at handover.

Adoption conditions: An internal sponsor, protected attendance, the company's own material and a named follow-through owner. Resource-cost break-even, not a cash saving.

The commercial case

Value depends on use.Not just installation.

The programme model counts separate tasks once and includes the cost of participating.

£219.3k

year-one capacity value

Modelled employment-cost equivalent

£141,600

year-one resource cost

Fees, tools and internal participation

Capacity value£219,318

Total resource cost£141,600

Resource benefit / cost

1.55×

Modelled resource-cost recovery

Month 8

Cumulative capacity value less resource cost. This is not a cash-flow chart or a cash payback claim.

Lower use changes the decision. 50% steady effective use: At half the modelled use, the first-year value falls well below the modelled case. Modelled first-year value would be £109,659 against the same £141,600 cost.

Benefit classes and the assumption record sit in Appendix B, with the inputs that produce them.

Fixed-price delivery routes

Three ways to proceed.

Each route has defined inclusions. The independent study remains useful whichever route is selected.

Recommended

Coordinated route

Efficiency Programme

£10,000+ VAT per month

Six-month minimum · £60,000 + VAT total supplier commitment

Committed scope

Survey record assistant, Call-off bid assistant, 12 tailored training days and workflow handover.

Support and improvement

10 days a month across delivery, training, support and improvement, for six months.

No additional mobilisation fee. New workflows are not included. Software, hosting and client time are separate.

Custom-Built Systems

W01 · Survey record assistant£6,000
W02 · Call-off bid assistant£6,000
All defined builds£11,000 + VAT

Design, build, implementation testing, handover training and 30 days of defect correction. General team training and ongoing improvement are not included.

Standalone training

Tailored · 12 days · cohorts of up to 10 · 120 people

Practical team capability. No workflow build or continuing consultancy. A basic untailored day is available at £2,000 per cohort.

£36,000+ VAT

These are alternatives, not additive package fees. Training is already included in the Efficiency Programme.

Implementation path

A sequence with owners.Not a list of AI ideas.

Complete the shared foundations once, then release each workflow only after its own acceptance.

NOW

Months 1–2

Prepare the team and the source material

Agree approved templates, source ownership and access rules. Begin the tailored training cohorts. Start the reporting build.

Client: Operations sponsor and document owners.
Dependency: Approved material, named reviewers and confirmed tenant rules.

Months 3–4

Release the reporting workflow

Complete testing and acceptance, train the users at handover and begin controlled use. Start the call-off build.

Client: Reporting lead accepts the output and the controls.
Dependency: Acceptance before general use.

LATER

Months 5–6

Release call-off responses and improve both

Accept the call-off workflow, complete handover and use the included improvement allocation. Decide who owns operation after month six.

Client: Bid lead and system owner.
Dependency: A documented operating and support arrangement.

Reviews and included allocation

Track use, corrections, released capacity and client decisions. Agree changes within the included allocation of 10 days a month, not an unlimited backlog.

First actions: Name the sponsor and process owners, confirm the approved templates, then select the route and scope.

Design, building and acceptance take place later under paid delivery, not within this study.

Your decision pack

Enough detail to act.No dependence on us.

The independent plan is separate from Built Logic's supplier prices and any later appointment.

The plan is yours to use.

Use the plan with Built Logic, your own team or another provider. The requirements, assumptions and acceptance checks stand on their own.

Process records

What happens today, who acts, where the handovers fail and what stays unchanged.

Appendix A

Investment model

Inputs, calculations, rollout, costs and the distinction between capacity and cash.

Appendix B

Delivery brief

Included outputs, exclusions, controls, ownership and future acceptance.

Appendix C

Evidence and assumptions

What supports each finding, what is modelled and what still needs confirmation.

Appendix D

Your next decision

Agree who will own delivery and ongoing operation. Compare any provider against the same defined scope, not only the headline fee.

The delivered package includes an editable calculations and requirements workbook alongside this report.

Appendix A1 / Process record

Client reporting.

The numbered stages link to the current and proposed process pages.

Stage and role	Input → output	Exception or control
R01 · Confirm the instruction Project lead	Accepted instruction → Purpose, scope and report type	A new instruction requires a controlled scope change.
R02 · Collect the records Coordinator	Client and project files → Indexed evidence set	Missing, conflicting and superseded material is recorded. (Version hunting)
R03 · Record the findings Surveyor	Site visit and records → Professional notes and photograph references	No tool substitutes for observation or diagnosis.
R04 · Prepare the report Surveyor	Approved notes and evidence → Draft, source list and gaps	Unsupported content stays a gap for review. (Repeated collation)
R05 · Check and approve Reviewer	Draft and underlying records → Approval or corrections	Professional conclusions and sign-off remain human. (Gaps found late)
R06 · Issue and archive Coordinator	Approved version → Issue record and archive	A later amendment gets a new version and a new review.

Baseline and proposed effort

Team effort	Current	Modelled at steady use
Instruct, collect and record	50 h	Source checking and survey judgement retained
Draft, review and issue	75 h	Collation reduced; professional review retained

Net release: 37.5 hours released each active week · 1,650 h a year.

Boundary: The issued report is the approved record. Remedial design and subsequent delivery are outside this build.

Variants: Condition surveys, dilapidations and project reports share one approved family of templates. Excluded: Remedial design, technical calculations and subsequent project delivery are outside this assessment.

Appendix A2 / Process record

Bids and proposals.

The numbered stages link to the current and proposed process pages.

Stage and role	Input → output	Exception or control
S01 · Capture the call-off Coordinator	Call-off brief → Logged opportunity and source	A duplicate call-off is linked, not counted twice. (Incomplete records)
S02 · Qualify the fit Bid lead	Logged opportunity → Pursue or decline decision	Capacity, service fit and any conflict are recorded.
S03 · Read the requirements Bid lead	Call-off documents → Requirement list and missing inputs	An incomplete brief returns to the owner; no invented facts. (Repeated chasing)
S04 · Prepare the response Coordinator	Requirements and approved library → Draft response and references	Only approved versions and permitted reference material. (Repeated drafting)
S05 · Review and authorise Director	Draft and commercial inputs → Approval or required changes	Scope, fee and terms are human decisions. (Approval queue)
S06 · Submit and close Bid lead	Approved submission → Award or recorded loss	Changed scope reopens qualification and approval.

Baseline and proposed effort

Team effort	Current	Modelled at steady use
Capture, qualify and read	28 h	Within the retained human process
Prepare, review and submit	42 h	Preparation reduced; review retained

Net release: 18 hours released each active week · 792 h a year.

Boundary: An awarded call-off passes to mobilisation. Project delivery is outside this build.

Variants: Two response variants share one approved bid library; repeat clients skip qualification. Excluded: New framework applications and open public-sector portal tenders are outside this assessment.

Appendix B1 / Capacity model

Every hour has a source.

Each benefit line is produced by the shared calculation engine from the inputs below.

Benefit line	Hours a year	Capacity value	Basis
Report preparation capacity	1,650 h	£79,200	Released capacity at employment cost
Call-off response capacity	792 h	£38,016	Released capacity at employment cost
Everyday task capability	3,300 h	£158,400	Released capacity at employment cost, excluding the two build workloads

Net capacity: eligible periods × net hours released × effective use, less any additional support hours. Values are the employment-cost equivalent of those hours.

Total hours a year

5,742 h

Total capacity value

£275,616

Separate ledgers

Ledger	Steady year	Hours a year	First year	Basis
Released capacity	£275,616	5,742 h	£219,318	Employment-cost equivalent of released hours. Not cash.

Benefit classes

Benefit	Class	Basis
Report preparation capacity	Operational	Employment-cost equivalent, not cash
Call-off response capacity	Operational	Employment-cost equivalent, not cash
Everyday task capability	Operational	Employment-cost equivalent, not cash

Training excludes the assessed build workloads. Shared costs are counted once. Recovery is a resource-cost recovery, not a cash payback.

Appendix B2 / Training model

The cost of participation.

The supplier fee is only one part of the resource cost. Existing capability and licences change the incremental case.

First-year resource cost	Basis	Amount
Supplier fee	Tailored tariff, cohorts of ten	£36,000
Attendance	Actual attendance schedule	£43,200
Practice	Included practice hours	£5,760
Internal mobilisation	Client preparation	£1,920
Incremental licences	Per person per month	£28,800
Internal support	Monthly support hours	£1,152
Total	Not all supplier cash spend	£116,832

7.4 min

steady-use break-even

Net daily improvement per active person

8.6 min

first-year break-even

Same costs, with the recorded rollout

A model, not a claim. Time, use, cost and licence inputs are assumptions. No cash saving is established. Recoverable VAT is excluded.

Appendix B3 / Programme model

One count of each cost.

Supplier cash, external running costs and internal resource are counted separately and once.

Year-one investment	Cash or resource	Amount
Six monthly Efficiency Programme fees	Supplier cash	£60,000
Approved assistant licences and workflow running costs for the people in scope, paid to the software suppliers, not to Built Logic.	External running cost	£28,800
Client mobilisation, acceptance, training attendance and in-house support in the first twelve months.	Internal resource	£52,800

Total first-year resource cost

£141,600

Prices exclude VAT

Recoverable VAT is excluded throughout

Assumption discipline

Category	What it covers
Based on supplied evidence	Activity counts, team effort and the finance-approved employment cost basis.
Management estimate	Current effort by stage, confirmed by the area owners.
Model assumption	Steady effective use, the monthly rollout and the retained review effort.
Not yet proven	No proposed change has been built, tested or measured in this study.

No overlap: Training excludes the assessed build workloads. Shared costs are counted once. Recovery is a resource-cost recovery, not a cash payback.

Appendix B4 / Rollout and horizons

Benefit arrives on a ramp.

Monthly fractions of the steady-use case, and the same model read over three horizons.

Benefit line	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8	M9	M10	M11	M12
Report preparation capacity	0%	0%	50%	75%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Call-off response capacity	0%	0%	0%	0%	50%	75%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Everyday task capability	0%	50%	75%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

Resource view by horizon

View	6 months	12 months	24 months
Capacity value	£81,510	£219,318	£494,934
Resource cost	£100,800	£141,600	£223,200
Net resource balance	−£19,290	£77,718	£271,734

Recovery is a resource-cost recovery, not a cash payback. A second adoption discount is not applied on top of the ramp.

Appendix C1 / Delivery brief

The delivery boundary.

A common business brief another competent provider can assess, without a prescribed engineering method.

Included boundary	W01 · Survey record assistant	W02 · Call-off bid assistant
Company and users	One UK entity; ten authorised users.	Same entity; six authorised users.
Volume envelope	Up to 40 reports a month.	Up to 25 call-off responses a month.
Input	Text-based records, survey notes and supplied photograph references.	A structured call-off brief and approved, text-based material.
Output	One agreed report template, source register and gap list.	One agreed response template, source register and missing-input list.
Variations	One reporting family using the same approved templates.	Two response variants using the same approved library.
Information transfer	The user supplies authorised files inside the tenant. No automatic external issue.	The user supplies authorised files inside the tenant. No portal write-back.
Human authority	Observations, conclusions, advice and approval.	Scope, fee, terms and approval.

Appendix C1 / Delivery brief, continued

What is excluded.

Each build carries its own exclusions alongside the shared boundary.

Common exclusions

W01 · Survey record assistant

No photograph diagnosis, no technical calculations, no autonomous client commitments, no replacement of the responsible professional.

W02 · Call-off bid assistant

No new bid system, no data migration, no historic archive cleansing, no portal automation.

Inputs and source ownership are part of scope. The client names the template and source owners, supplies authorised current material and confirms approved access. Unsupported or missing inputs are routed to review, not filled by guesswork.

Appendix C2 / Acceptance and handover

What acceptance requires.

Quality, control and ownership are separate from the hoped-for speed improvement.

Acceptance requirement	Future evidence	Decision owner
Every factual statement carries its source.	Inspect source references across the agreed case set.	Reporting lead
Gaps are raised before professional review.	Incomplete and conflicting evidence cases.	Reporting lead
Client and confidential material stays inside the approved tenant.	Access checks and denied-access cases.	System owner
Professional conclusions are never generated.	Review the agreed case set for substituted judgement.	Responsible reviewer
Failure has a usable manual route.	Demonstrate a failed run, recovery and the normal manual process.	Operations sponsor
Only authorised source material is accessible.	Role-based access checks and denied-access cases.	System owner
Factual draft content is traceable to a supplied source.	Review of the agreed case set and inspection of source references.	Bid lead
Missing or conflicting requirements are visible.	Incomplete, conflicting and revised-document cases.	Bid lead
No response is submitted without human authorisation.	Demonstrate approval and submission controls.	Director

Ownership and support

Project route

Handover training and 30 days of in-scope defect correction. New features and continuing operation are separate.

Efficiency Programme route

The same deliverables plus 10 days a month across improvement, support and reviews over the minimum term. No unlimited backlog.

These are future implementation checks, not tests performed during the study.

Appendix D / Source and assumption record

Sources and assumptions.

What supports each finding, what is modelled and what still needs confirmation.

ID	Source and role
B1	Benefits and Investment Case Master v0.2 — Supplied methodology, classifications, training terms and calculation rules.
D1	Kristian, 13 September 2026 grill record — Decisions D1 to D12: rates, day rubric, tariffs, bands, route rule, study fee.
H1	Halden Wyke Consulting engagement record, September 2026 — Company picture, systems, workload bands and restrictions. Every figure is a stated working assumption.
H2	Halden Wyke Consulting AI Action Plan, September 2026 — The two selected areas, the training scope and the route this study is measured against.

Evidence modules applied

M02 Tender review, estimating and submission; M07 Engineering, surveying and professional-service delivery; M12 Shared knowledge, document search and repeatable drafting

What is not established here

No solution has been built, tested or measured, so future performance remains a forecast until it is checked during paid delivery.
Exact role counts, template versions, permissions and measured task performance are not yet confirmed.
The rework rate for issued reports and submitted responses remains unknown and no benefit is claimed from it.

Appendix D / Outstanding record

What is still open.

Each item names its owner and what it affects. A blocking item stops that commitment, not the rest of the study.

Outstanding record

ID	Outstanding	Owner	Effect
gap.G01	Recorded rework or revision rate for issued reports and submitted responses. A quality benefit cannot be claimed without a baseline.	Reporting lead	No rework benefit is claimed in the commercial case

Fixed fees exclude VAT. The study fee is £2,000 with a £500 deposit, recorded separately from the delivery routes.

Appendix D / Presentation contract

Every visual has a record.

Each element of the report links back to the record and the calculation that produced it.

ID	Record	What this study shows	Source
VIS01	Report and reference identity	Halden Wyke Consulting, version 1.0, issued	register identity and issue gate
VIS02	Reading order and content coverage	2 assessed areas across the main report and four appendices	page order
VIS03	Process diagram nodes and edges	W01, W02 source-to-output diagrams	delivery records
VIS04	Controls and detailed process links	12 stages with their controls in Appendix A	process stage records
VIS05	Displayed result and provenance	3 benefit lines, each naming its engine call and classification	benefits engine results
VIS06	Chart semantics and geometry	Cumulative resource balance over 13 monthly points, axis −£30.6k to £77.7k	cashInvestment series
VIS07	Commercial route display	3 priced routes, recommended Efficiency Programme	calculator fees
VIS08	Training and roadmap graphics	12 cohorts and 3 roadmap steps with owners	training and roadmap records
VIS09	Supporting detail and export mapping	2 process records, 9 acceptance rows, editable workbook delivered	appendices and workbook
VIS10	Access and rendering state	3 active modules; private records excluded before rendering	client-safe filter

Derived from the prepared study. No visual carries a figure that is not in the record behind it.

Appendix D / Result provenance

Where each figure comes from.

Result and method version, evidence, classification, unit, cohort, baseline, period and scenario.

Visual and result	Method and evidence	Classification and unit	Cohort and baseline	Period and scenario
VIS05 · benefit.B01	study-method-2026-09-13 process.P09, process.P10, benefit.V04	Released capacity at employment cost GBP a year, employment-cost equivalent	Client reporting: 10 people in the workflow 44 eligible periods at 50 hours	First twelve months from engagement start, on the recorded rollout Steady effective use 75%; 1,650 h released; overlap report-hours
VIS05 · benefit.B02	study-method-2026-09-13 process.P09, process.P10, benefit.V04	Released capacity at employment cost GBP a year, employment-cost equivalent	Bids and proposals: 6 people in the workflow 44 eligible periods at 24 hours	First twelve months from engagement start, on the recorded rollout Steady effective use 75%; 792 h released; overlap call-off-hours
VIS05 · benefit.B03	study-method-2026-09-13 training.L01, training.L05, benefit.V04	Released capacity at employment cost, excluding the two build workloads GBP a year, employment-cost equivalent	120 people across 12 cohort(s) 220 eligible days per person	First twelve months from engagement start, on the recorded rollout Steady effective use 75%; 3,300 h released, break-even 7.4 min a person a day; overlap training-hours
VIS06 · commercial.series	study-method-2026-09-13 benefit.B01, benefit.B02, benefit.B03	Cumulative capacity value less resource cost GBP, cumulative	160 people in Manchester, Leeds and London Zero at month 0	Month 0 to month 12 Line chart, common scale −£30.6k to £77.7k, zero and negative shown

Appendix D / Result provenance, continued

Where each figure comes from.

Result and method version, evidence, classification, unit, cohort, baseline, period and scenario.

Visual and result	Method and evidence	Classification and unit	Cohort and baseline	Period and scenario
VIS07 · route.partnership	study-method-2026-09-13 company.C06, delivery.D14	Fixed monthly fee, six-month minimum GBP a month, excluding VAT	120 people in scope 10 days a month from the band	6 months, total £60,000 Rate £1,000 a person-day; capacity within-capacity
VIS07 · route.workflows	study-method-2026-09-13 process.P03, process.P07, process.P18, delivery.D03 \| process.P03, process.P07, process.P09, delivery.D03	Fixed build fees GBP one-off, excluding VAT	W01, W02 11 days after shared handover	One-off, on acceptance Shared handover removed once (1 day(s))
VIS07 · route.training	study-method-2026-09-13 training.L01, training.L04	Tailored training tariff GBP per cohort, excluding VAT	120 people in 12 cohort(s) of up to 10 £3,000 a cohort	One-off Kristian, 13 September 2026 grill, decisions D2 and D7
VIS08 · training.cohorts	study-method-2026-09-13 training.L01, training.L04, training.L05	Cohort and capability plan people and days	120 people, 1 day(s) a cohort 2 role groups	Delivered before and at handover Included in the recommended route

Appendix D / Result provenance, continued

Where each figure comes from.

Result and method version, evidence, classification, unit, cohort, baseline, period and scenario.

Visual and result	Method and evidence	Classification and unit	Cohort and baseline	Period and scenario
VIS08 · roadmap.Now	study-method-2026-09-13 delivery.D10, delivery.D12	Action with owner and dependency phase	Operations sponsor and document owners. Approved material, named reviewers and confirmed tenant rules.	Months 1–2 Committed within the recommended route
VIS08 · roadmap.Next	study-method-2026-09-13 delivery.D10, delivery.D12	Action with owner and dependency phase	Reporting lead accepts the output and the controls. Acceptance before general use.	Months 3–4 Committed within the recommended route
VIS08 · roadmap.Later	study-method-2026-09-13 delivery.D10, delivery.D12	Action with owner and dependency phase	Bid lead and system owner. A documented operating and support arrangement.	Months 5–6 Uncommissioned until the prior phase is accepted