Value & decision

What we recommend, on what conditions, and what that value is actually worth at this stage.

Final session scheduled for Friday 14 August 2026

Decision

Provisional recommendation

Build

Status · subject to conditions

The engagement is still running and decision-critical questions remain open. This recommendation can still change before the final session.

What still prevents a final recommendation

3 decision-critical questions remain open.
The engagement is on day 6 of 10: the final session has not taken place.

The value is clear enough to build a first loop, provided six foundation conditions are dealt with.

First loop

Prepare a bid without starting from scratch

Why

01
The data already exists
The CRM and the project archive hold much of what is needed. The quality of the links, the access and the operating rules all remain to be confirmed.
02
The loop fits an existing motion
The team already qualifies opportunities. We are not asking it to change method — we give it the context earlier.
03
The output is an action, not a report
Each pass produces a documented decision and a next action attached to someone.

On what conditions

“With conditions” is not a hedge: without these six points, the loop cannot work.

1Standardise six project description fieldsSector, mission type, order of magnitude, main constraints, project lead, delivery year.Head of projects · Before the Build startsExpected evidence : Export of the project archive showing the six fields filled in.Acceptance criterion : All six fields are filled in on the fifty most recent projects.Not startedEmerges fromQ-09— Do projects follow a naming standard?
2Link CRM accounts to their historical projectsEstablish the shared identifier that is missing today between the two sources.Sales and projects leadership · Week 1 of the BuildExpected evidence : Mapping table CRM account ↔ project, with its coverage rate.Acceptance criterion : Eighty per cent of accounts with a delivered project are linked without manual work.In progressEmerges fromQ-02— What makes a project comparable?
3Formally name the business ownerOne named, available person who validates recommendations and owns the loop.Leadership · At Build signatureExpected evidence : Name written into the scope, with written confirmation of availability.Acceptance criterion : The name appears in the Build scope and the person has confirmed their availability.Not startedEmerges fromQ-14— Who validates the action?Q-03— Who decides, and on what criteria?
4Validate the qualification rulesWhat makes an opportunity qualified enough to trigger the loop.Sales leadership · Week 2 of the BuildExpected evidence : Written rules, applied without disagreement on ten test opportunities.Acceptance criterion : The rules are written down and applied without disagreement on ten test opportunities.Not startedEmerges fromQ-03— Who decides, and on what criteria?
5Measure the current search time before going liveThe initial baseline, timed on ten real opportunities. Without it, no gain can be demonstrated later.NateSystem and sales leadership · Before the first deploymentExpected evidence : Ten timestamped search-time measurements, with their protocol.Acceptance criterion : Ten timestamped measurements, with their protocol, before the first deployment.Not startedEmerges fromQ-01— How long to recover context?
6Confirm the business case assumptionsOpportunity volume, loaded internal cost, average deal value and contribution margin.Leadership · Before the Build startsExpected evidence : Every assumption tied to an internal source and to an owner.Acceptance criterion : Every assumption carries an internal source and a person who owns it.In progressEmerges fromQ-13— How many opportunities per quarter?

What is not guaranteed

Revenue
Meetings
Response rate
ROI
Automatic adoption by the team
Deliverability

What would stop this

Data not accessible within the timeframe
No business owner designated
No capacity to act on the recommendations
Value insufficient against the investment
Impossible to measure how the loop performs

If you decide to build

90-day Build
1 primary loop
3 sources maximum
1 CRM integration
1 action channel
Human validation on every recommendation
Weekly measurement

The 3× rule applies to the decision to put a loop into Build. It does not apply to the Pilot.

The €2,500 excl. VAT paid for the Diagnostic is deducted from the Build setup if the Build is signed within 30 calendar days of the final session, under the terms of the quote.

The Pilot is not automatically assessed in this Diagnostic. It can be considered once a Build has been used and a first recurring value has been measured.

See the detailed build plan

The value

What this value is worth today

In order: what is observed, what is not, what will have to be measured. The numbers come afterwards, and they are fragile.

What we know

Observed in your sources during the engagement.

Both sources contain the elements the loop needs.
Comparable projects are retrievable once the link is rebuilt.
Evidence can be attached to its source document.
An owner exists for every opportunity in the CRM.

What remains hypothetical

Estimated, never measured. None of these figures is a result.

The time actually spent today recovering context.
The volume of opportunities concerned over 90 days.
The average deal value and the contribution margin.
The share of additional wins better preparation would enable.

What must be measured before building

Without these measurements, no gain can be demonstrated later.

Real search time, timed across ten opportunities.
Volume of relevant opportunities over one observed quarter.
Internal loaded cost, confirmed by finance.
Adoption and validation rate within the sales team.

Read before the numbers

These scenarios are neither a forecast nor a guarantee of revenue, meetings or ROI. They exist to check whether the assumptions are solid enough to consider a Build.

Starting assumptions

Business case assumptions
Assumption	Value	Status	Source	Confidence	Owner
Relevant opportunities over 90 daysHYP-BC-01	24	Illustrative	Extrapolated from the 48 CRM opportunities over 12 months	Medium	Sales management
Current search time per opportunityHYP-BC-02	3.5 hours	To confirm	Sales lead interview — never measured	Low	Sales lead
Internal loaded costHYP-BC-03	€95/hour	To confirm	Sector order of magnitude — to be replaced by Norevia's own figure	Low	Finance
Average deal valueHYP-BC-04	€100,000	To confirm	Midpoint of the €20,000 — €250,000 range	Low	Sales management
Contribution marginHYP-BC-05	30%	To confirm	Working assumption — not disclosed at this stage	Low	Finance
Additional win rate — conservativeHYP-BC-06	2%	Scenario	Lower bound used for the conservative scenario	Low	NateSystem
Additional win rate — centralHYP-BC-07	5%	Scenario	Central assumption used for the arbitration	Low	NateSystem
Additional win rate — ambitiousHYP-BC-08	8%	Scenario	Upper bound, not predictive	Low	NateSystem

No assumption is validated to date. The scenarios exist to check whether the value is plausible, not to announce a result.

Three scenarios

Formulas

Capacity value: opportunities × search hours × hourly cost
Illustrative commercial value: opportunities × average deal value × contribution margin × additional win rate
Indicative total value: capacity value + illustrative commercial value

Decision thresholds

Build investment (90 days): €14,000
Indicative 3× threshold — Build: €42,000

The 3× threshold is a decision marker, not a promise of return. It exists to rule out loops whose value would not cover the investment with enough margin.

The 3× rule applies to the decision to put a loop into Build. It does not apply to the Pilot.

The Pilot is not automatically assessed in this Diagnostic. It can be considered once a Build has been used and a first recurring value has been measured.

What is guaranteed

Scope documented
Analysis carried out on the agreed sources
Prototype delivered and usable
Assumptions made explicit with their confidence level
Decision documented and justified
Deliverables handed over

Detailed reasoning
Element retained
The value sits close to decisions the team already takes every week.
Both sources contain the elements required.
Comparable projects are accessible.
Evidence can be linked back to its source document.
A human action can follow every recommendation.
The core value is plausible, subject to validating the assumptions.

Take the decision

NateSystem recommendation : Build — subject to conditions.

Simulated decision — no real action was sent. No order is created, no signature is committed.

In a real engagement, this decision is taken during the readout with the sponsor and the decision-maker.

The principle

A successful Diagnostic does not necessarily lead to a Build. It leads to a reliable decision.