Source: https://dilexicon.com/behavos/demo [The thesis](https://dilexicon.com/behavos) Sample data · not a live customer Early warning · Engagement #4471 Northwind Group # Elevated slippage risk Forecast window: Next 90 days · High — 3 of 3 leading signals moving in the same direction ## What changed - Senior allocation drifted 35% → 51% over six weeks MarginMix effort bands (Senior / Mid / Execution split) → M_discipline · H_drag - 2 of 3 engagement leads trending into red-zone load Headroom Core / Toxic / Growth load + burnout risk band → H_drag - 3 deliverables shipped outside contracted scope this month L_shadow drivers (unscoped deliverables × baseline hours) → L_shadow Recommended Run the 90-day action order; validate capacity before moving senior hours. The warning is the product. Π — the Behavioral Equation of Profit — is why it is right. Behind the warning · sample data ## Where the warning comes from Northwind Group, a 34-person delivery footprint. The operating data arrives from the company's own systems, passes through MarginMix risk logic and Headroom cognitive load, and resolves into Π — the arithmetic that makes the warning a forecast rather than a hunch. Illustrative sample dataset — no live customer data. The fields fill themselves. 01 Company's own sources ## Data arrives from systems that already exist No new tracking layer. The OS reads what finance, commercial and resourcing already maintain, plus the behavioral telemetry Headroom and MarginMix generate. ### SAP / ERP Financial system of record Synced Annual contract value$2,400,000 Baseline cost (loaded)$1,610,000C_baseline Sales commission6.0% · $144,000 Monthly retainer$150,000 Outcome-based fees at risk15% of fees Portfolio value (ecosystem)$3,870,000W_scope denominator ### Excel / Rate card Commercial modeling Synced Card-rate ideal revenue$2,950,000R_ideal Realized vs card rate0.81 Blended cost rate$62 / hour Replacement cost per exit$48,000 Delivery headcount34 FTE Senior mix21% of FTE ### Workfront / Workday Effort & workforce telemetry Synced Planned hours41,200 Actual hours logged46,900 On-scope hours39,400 Coordination / meeting hours11,260 Senior hours on delivery7,980 Rework / iteration cycles4.2 avg per deliverable ### Headroom + MarginMix Behavioral telemetry Synced Calendar events analyzed3,418 (90-day window) Core load (avg)58 / 100 Toxic load (avg)71 / 100 Growth load (avg)22 / 100 MarginMix assessments27 questions × 9 leads Confidence signalNeutral Proprietary risk logic · weighting · signal routing 02 Processing layer ## Every signal is routed, weighted and scored 27 MarginMix questions map to five weighted dimensions. Headroom's Sweller decomposition runs in parallel on 3,418 calendar events. Both feed the same ledger. ### MarginMix weighted scoring model 5 dimensions · 27 signals Workforce Intensity weight 30% · Q13 Q15 Q16 Q20 Q21 Most direct driver of margin erosion 78 /100 Coordination Entropy weight 25% · Q14 Q18 Q22 Compounding overhead across delivery layers 72 /100 Commercial Exposure weight 20% · Q7 Q9 Q10 Q17 Pricing and scope risk 55 /100 Volatility Control weight 15% · Q11 Q12 Client-side unpredictability 60 /100 Measurement Maturity weight 10% · Q19 Q24 Q25 Q26 AI substitution and oversight risk 45 /100 Composite risk 66 Verdict Structurally Fragile Confidence signal is neutral, so no hard override fires. Score routes straight into the behavioral cost terms below. Base layer of the dashboard 03 Base layer ## Current commercials and resource allocation What the business believes it is earning, and where the people actually are. Contract value $2,400,000 Annual, signed Retainer (annualised) $1,800,000 $150k / month Commissions $144,000 6% of ACV Outcome-based at risk $360,000 15% of fees ### Resource allocation 34 FTE · 46,900 hours Account / workstreamFTEHoursSenior mixUtilizationNorthwind — Brand Platform12.417,10026%94% Northwind — Always-on Ops9.813,60014%88% Northwind — Performance6.69,45019%91% Shared / unbilled pool5.26,75028%61% The crux — delivery complexity meets human capacity 04 Leading indicators ## Delivery complexity and cognitive load, side by side These are the signals that move before revenue does. Each one is derived, not declared — the derivation sits under every number. ### Workforce Intensity high 78/100 Senior dependency + thinking-heavy mix + 4.2 iteration cycles ### Coordination Drag high 24% of hours 11,260 coordination hours ÷ 46,900 actual hours ### Senior Involvement moderate 17% of hours 7,980 senior hours on delivery vs 21% senior FTE ### Scope Slippage high 16% of hours (46,900 actual − 39,400 on-scope) ÷ 46,900 ### Cognitive Load Index high 63/100 Core 58 × 0.5 + Toxic 71 × 0.7 − Growth 22 × 0.25 + 10 ### Burnout Risk high 68/100 Load 63 × 0.7 + Toxic 71 × 0.3 ### Cognitive load & burnout risk by team TeamPeopleCoreToxicGrowthDaily loadBurnout riskCreative & Strategy1161791671high Delivery / PMO855741866high Performance & Analytics957622955moderate Client Partnership660662759moderate Apply the Behavioral Equation of Profit 05 The equation ## Π = (M_discipline × R_ideal) − [C_baseline + L_shadow + (H_drag × W_scope)] Every term is now populated from the layers above. Nothing is estimated by hand. M_discipline 0.803 Management discipline — geometric mean of three sub-scores Scope adherence 0.84 Pricing integrity 0.81 Boundary holding 0.76 R_ideal $2,950,000 Card-rate ideal revenue C_baseline $1,610,000 Visible loaded cost already on the P&L L_shadow $465,000 Shadow labor — 7,500 unbilled hours × $62 blended rate H_drag $630,658 Cognitive drag — velocity loss plus burnout churn Velocity degradation $434,818 Burnout-driven churn $195,840 W_scope 0.620 Scope weight — $2.40M evaluated ÷ $3.87M portfolio Resolution (0.803 × $2,950,000) = $2,367,896 $1,610,000 + $465,000 + ($630,658 × 0.620) = $2,466,106 Reported profit $790,000 32.9% margin on ACV Behavioral profit Π −$98,210 -4.1% true margin Invisible gap $888,210 Shadow labor + cognitive drag Reported margin says this account earns $790,000. The Behavioral OS says it loses $98,210. The gap is $888,210 of shadow labor and cognitive drag that never reached the P&L. ### Π across the forecast window — why the warning fired Π today −$98,210 Π forecast · +90 days −$411,164 Movement −$312,955 M_discipline Pricing integrity slips 0.81 → 0.76 as scope drifts −$144,550 L_shadow Unscoped deliverables add ~1,900 unbilled hours −$117,800 H_drag × W_scope Senior concentration lifts churn probability 12% → 17% −$50,605 Each signal on the warning card is one of these terms moving. The warning is a forecast produced by arithmetic — not a sentiment score. Action order ### Turn the warning into a decision Three interventions are priced by recomputing Π. The senior-hours move is kept as an operational order until the sample contains named capacity and skill-fit data. Modeled recovery plan Reprice at renewal, cap coordination at 15% of hours, and protect two weekly deep-work blocks for the two leads trending into red-zone load. End point: the existing 90-day warning window · denominator: $2.40M contract value · senior redistribution excluded from the financial total Π recovery +$499,943 +20.8 margin points - 01 Reprice at renewal Modeled Move realized rate from 0.81 to 0.92 of card rate. Pricing integrity: 0.81 → 0.92 · The engagement is invoiced at 81% of card rate while delivering 116% of planned hours. M_discipline Confirm the renewal rate before the Q3 review. +$102,672 standalone Π effect - 02 Cap coordination at 15% of hours Modeled Convert 3 of 7 recurring status forums to async. Coordination: 24% → 15% · release 4,225 hours · 11,260 of 46,900 actual hours are currently coordination or meeting hours. M_discipline · L_shadow Review coordination share after the next reporting cycle. +$343,732 standalone Π effect - 03 Protect 2 deep-work blocks / week Modeled Preserve two weekly deep-work blocks for the two leads trending into red-zone load. Toxic load: 71 → 58 · Toxic load averages 71/100 and no 90-minute deep-work window survives on 6 of 10 weekdays. H_drag Recheck toxic load and burnout risk at the next weekly review. +$49,992 standalone Π effect - 04 Redistribute senior dependency Capacity check Shift 1,400 senior hours to mid-level delivery with a review gate. Workforce Intensity: 78 → ~66 · Senior allocation drifted from 35% to 51% over six weeks. H_drag · M_discipline Validate named mid-level capacity, skill fit and review burden before assigning the hours. Not priced missing capacity data The displayed recovery is a deterministic scenario, not a promised quarter-close result. It uses only the existing sample targets and equation terms; no person-level allocation, role-rate or quality assumptions have been added. ### Auto-generated insights Root cause Toxic load, not headcount, is eating the margin Toxic load averages 71/100 across delivery — 24% of all logged hours are coordination, and no 90-minute deep-work window survives on 6 of 10 weekdays. That converts to $434,818 of velocity degradation before a single hour is written off. Commercial Pricing integrity at 0.81 caps the ceiling The engagement is invoiced at 81% of card rate while delivering 116% of planned hours. Repricing to 0.92 on renewal recovers roughly $325,000 of ideal revenue without touching effort. Concentration Creative & Strategy carries the burnout risk 11 people sit at 71 daily load with 16 growth load. At a 12% exit probability this pod alone represents $63,360 of amortised replacement cost — and it holds the senior dependency the whole account runs on. V1 mockup — logic sourced from the Headroom deterministic blueprint and the MarginMix risk model. [Back to the Behavioral OS](https://dilexicon.com/behavos)