# Northstar: evidence available for the day-90 decision

**Learning edition:** 1.2 · **Decision date:** 2026-05-06 · **Classification:** public, entirely fictional.
**Boundary:** E-009/E-010 and the earlier dispositions below. DEC-005 has not yet been made.

All source records, counts, names, and decisions in this exercise are fictional. The exact-count datasets and original-promise/restoration outcomes are newly authored v1.2 extensions; they were not recovered from v1.1. The additions intentionally make the next decision less comfortable than reading the aggregate dashboard alone.

## Decisions already made

DEC-001 conditionally authorized the three-branch A1/R1 test within $150–300k, six peak temporary FTE, and staged commitment. DEC-002 deferred enterprise procurement.

DEC-003, recorded by Casey Ortiz (ORG-15) on January 30, authorized a staggered February 2 start only after the remaining shift passed training and the January baseline was reconciled. It accepted provisional BO-05 reconciliation and a regional backup approver until the day-30 review. These conditions conveyed no R2 or procurement authority.

The readiness addendum dated February 1 records training completion and baseline reconciliation. ORG-08 owns BO-05; its R1 source remains provisional. OI-06 for enterprise source authority remains open.

## E-009

**Source:** day-30 operating/Finance extract and review, 2026-03-03.
**Owners:** Priya Shah ORG-09; Morgan Ellis ORG-12; ORG-07 Field Service; Delivery Management.
**Period:** February 2–March 3 inclusive, 30 days.

| Locator | Observation |
|---|---|
| E-009.1 | 128 of 144 eligible promises met the latest accepted promise: 88.9%, reported as 89% |
| E-009.2 | 121/144 had part/skill confirmation (M-04 84%); 112/144 followed complete policy or an approved exception (M-07 78%) |
| E-009.3 | M-03 margin 30.8%; M-06 technician productivity 4.1% below comparable baseline |
| E-009.4 | M-05 escalations 6.5 per 100, compared with approved pre-release 6.2: within the 0.5 tolerance |
| E-009.5 | Repeat visits 12% under still-disputed coding; one-shift exceptions 76%; rural approval backlog persists |
| E-009.6 | $118k spent; forecast $340k total; peak capacity 5.8 FTE; forecast exceeds the authorized cap |
| E-009.7 | Source lag creates reconciliation work. No comparison yet establishes that the proposed enterprise platform is the cheapest effective remedy. |

### Known day-30 decision: DEC-004

After CFO validation of margin/cost, Field Service validation of productivity, and Delivery validation of the forecast, Casey Ortiz used the one permitted remediation interval to continue R1 until the day-90 formal review.

The decision prohibited scope expansion, imposed the M-06 no-scale response, and closed a low-volume work type to new pilot admissions from March 4 to avoid forecast overspend. It required weekly margin/workload review, correction of BO-05 reconciliation, and a tested regional backup approver. Severe customer harm could pause a branch; extension of the margin exception or any cap increase required the Investment Council.

Completed observations from the removed work type were retained. Removing future scope was not permission to erase past failures. The scope change affects comparison and must be shown to the next forum.

## E-010

**Source:** day-90 extract, branch segmentation, audit, and Finance review, 2026-05-02.
**Review meeting:** May 6. Owners as above, with customer-outcome review by ORG-06.
**Detailed records:** see datasets/README.md and the CSV files in this folder.

### E-010.1: operational headline and reporting periods

There are 486 cumulative eligible promises: 176 metropolitan, 166 mixed-fleet, 144 rural. Of these, 167, 156, and 128 respectively meet the latest accepted promise. Total 451/486 = 92.8%, reported as 93%; the branch rates round to 95%, 94%, and 89%. Each branch passes 100 observations and the total passes 450. These counts meet a volume rule, not a representativeness test.

Later-period M-04 is 315/342 = 92.1% and M-07 is 328/342 = 95.9%, reported as 92% and 96%. Their period is days 31–90, not the full cumulative 90 days. Early M-07 noncompliance cannot disappear from a cumulative denominator.

M-04 records part/skill confirmation only. M-07 records all required policy steps or a complete approved exception. A promise can have confirmation but incomplete documentation; a fully approved exception can be compliant without normal confirmation. These measures are not nested sets.

### E-010.2: cost and guardrails

Finance reports cumulative gross service margin of 31.2%. Technician productivity is 2.0% below the comparable baseline, within its 3% guardrail. Total change cost is $287k and peak capacity is 5.8 FTE, within the authorized band. Cost includes $12k diagnostic, $58k preparation, and $217k release/measurement/change activity; ongoing manual-control cost requires a separate operating estimate.

Escalations are 5.6 per 100. Repeat visits are 11%, still above the 8% strategic aspiration and still subject to coding reconciliation. One-shift exception completion is 88%, below the 90% criterion. Rural adherence remains 89%. These are unresolved limitations, not noise to average away.

### E-010.3: scope and stable-cohort comparison

The first 30 days contain 114 retained-scope promises with 106 latest-promise successes and 30 subsequently closed-scope promises with 22 successes. Days 31–90 contain 342 retained-scope promises with 323 successes.

Thus the retained-scope latest-promise rate moves from 93.0% to 94.4%, a 1.5 percentage-point change. The broader aggregate moves from 88.9% early to 94.4% later, partly because the poorer-performing work type no longer enters. All 30 earlier closed-scope records remain in the 486 cumulative total.

Do not attribute the whole aggregate movement to policy adoption. Time, case mix, selection, changes in demand, and the intervention may all contribute.

### E-010.4: added customer-value evidence

The v1.2 customer-outcome extract reports original-promise fulfillment of 120/144 early and 268/342 later. Within retained scope it falls from 100/114 (87.7%) to 268/342 (78.4%). Mean restoration time in that retained cohort rises from 40 to 48 hours.

These are descriptive comparisons, without case-mix adjustment or a control group. They do not prove that the new policy caused harm. They do establish that latest-promise adherence alone is insufficient evidence of improved customer value. Examine promise revisions, demand refused or diverted, operating mix, and capacity before declaring success.

The separate cancellation/decline denominators in the dataset keep changes in the admitted population visible; they must not be folded into fulfilled-promise percentages without a defined question.

### E-010.5: request to the Council

The sponsor proposes designing R2 because the operational feasibility gate is met. Customer Operations asks whether later accepted dates conceal worse service to the original need. Finance asks for the recurring manual-control cost and a comparison of A4 targeted integration, further operating correction, and platform alternatives. No one has a controlled attribution estimate.

Avery must recommend the next decision. The Council may authorize design/readiness, restrict or stop portions of the practice, require investigation, or decline expansion. No existing decision authorizes twelve-branch activation or procurement.