The chain · Benefit
The project closed. Did the benefit arrive?
Benefits are forecast when optimism is rewarded and measured after the team is gone. TruMandate keeps each benefit alive for 24 months past closure, attached to the exact KPI it promised to move.
Forecast and actual on the same axis, in the units the business case used. Divergence shows itself.
Where it breaks
The largest credibility gap in portfolio governance.
The gap
Forecast at approval, measured never. Everyone involved knows the gap is there. It is simply nobody's job to close it once the project has closed.
The repeat promise
The same saving gets promised by three consecutive programmes, because the earlier promise stopped being tracked the day its project shut down. Nobody is lying. Nobody is checking.
The 24 months
TruMandate keeps the benefit alive past closure, owned by someone still in the role, measured against the KPI it promised to move. The quiet period is exactly when it watches.
AI in the platform
Leakage, found in the quarter nobody was watching.
The model watches the measure, not the project, so it keeps watching after the project stops existing. When actuals pull away from forecast it says by how much, over what period, and what it thinks caused it. Then a person decides, on the record.
Benefit leakage detected after closure
Benefit 4.2. Evidence: actuals diverged from forecast by 18% in the two quarters since closure, and the KPI stopped improving when the team was released. Suggested action: reassign ownership and revise the forecast.
Decision logged · s.alnuaimi · 16:30
In the demo