CASE FILES The evidence behind each proof path, in full.
Folded from four standalone pages 2026-09-06, one click less, same evidence.
CASE: OPERATING DIAGNOSTICSee the diagnostic logic before buying the engagement.
Click to expand the worked example ↓
Assume a regional service company has 480 appointment slots per month. It sells 408 of them and completes 367. The owner wants more leads, but the operating bridge shows that only 76.5% of available capacity reaches a completed job, illustrative, not a client result.
Available capacity480Monthly appointment slots based on the current team and service calendar.
Sold appointments408An 85% schedule-fill rate leaves 72 slots unused before fulfillment begins.
Completed jobs367A 90% sold-to-completed rate loses another 41 jobs to cancellation, rescheduling, or execution.
Visible opportunity≈ $311KAt a $950 ticket and 42% contribution margin, reaching 90% of capacity adds about $311,220 illustrative annual contribution.
Historical operating record behind the method: $5.1M annualized management-cost reduction, +1.5M selling hours added while selling cost fell 300 basis points, and a $2M→$18M COO run (source: prior-employer management reporting and résumé).
Supported
- The worked example is arithmetically inspectable
- Historical outcomes are attributed to prior operating roles
Not supported
- That the representative figures came from a client
- That a diagnosis guarantees implementation results
Start with the diagnostic CASE: FINANCE & MODEL REVIEWA model is not validated because the formulas calculate.
Click to expand the review standard ↓
It is validated when revenue, margin, working capital, cash, and operating capacity reconcile to the decision the model is supposed to support. The company in the excerpt below is illustrative, constructed to demonstrate the review method, not presented as a client result.
| Test | What the workbook says | What the review finds | Decision risk |
|---|
| Revenue bridge | Revenue grows 14% | Volume grows 8%, price 4%, no bridge for the remaining 2% | $96,000 of annual revenue has no operating driver |
|---|
| Capacity | Headcount stays flat | Forecast demand requires 11,240 productive hours; the roster produces 9,880 after shrinkage | Revenue case exceeds deliverable capacity by 13.8% |
|---|
| Cash | Ending cash rises | AR days stay fixed despite a shift toward slower-paying commercial work | The cash low point is understated even if the P&L is right |
|---|
| Control total | Model balances | Cash is used as the balancing plug rather than rolling from operating/investing/financing activity | A balanced balance sheet masks a broken cash forecast |
|---|
The record behind the standard: $1B+ planning scope and a 2017 CFO Award at Chico's FAS Inc., $200M+ Director-level P&L ownership, $5.1M/yr management-cost reduction, +$1.15M payroll discipline.
Not an audit, review, or compilation under AICPA standards; not tax, legal, or fairness-opinion work.
Put the model in front of me CASE: HOME-SERVICE GROWTH SYSTEMThe lead engine ran on my money first.
Click to expand the measured campaign ↓
Built inside a licensed pest-control operation, with my own ad spend and customer calls: campaign, funnel, phone layer, CRM, and reporting as one operating loop, not a slide.
Meta leads79Leads produced during the recorded 30-day campaign window.
Source: first-party Meta Ads reporting, 2026.
Media spend$1,202Total campaign spend in the same window.
Cost per lead≈ $15$1,202 ÷ 79 leads, rounded. A lead is not automatically a booked or profitable customer.
Supported
- The campaign, funnel, CRM bridge, and phone system were deployed and operated by the principal
Not supported
- That another market repeats the same cost per lead
- That all 79 leads became customers
Walk the live funnel · Test Amanda · Read the full case file
CASE: WEBSITE & AUDIT PRACTICEFifty-eight saved audit runs. Not six hundred client engagements.
Click to expand the aggregate evidence ↓
Results come from saved audit.json files, August 2026. Seven of the 58 runs are this consultancy's own or client-associated builds, disclosed here rather than presented as independent customer audits.
Mobile performance54Median of 55 completed Lighthouse mobile runs; range 10–100.
Security posture53Median across 58 checks of HTTPS, TLS, headers, mixed content, exposed paths.
Conversion-path presence50Median of 45 completed presence checks; not a conversion-rate measurement.
Overall score68Median across all 58 runs after available-section weight normalization.
Among 51 runs that completed AI-visibility checks: 39/51 failed heading structure, 32/51 failed meta-description coverage, 31/51 lacked useful schema, 30/51 failed Open Graph basics, 29/51 failed image-alt coverage. These are deterministic page observations, not proof of rank, revenue, or AI-answer absence.
Read the complete aggregate case file · See the website health offer