Proof library

Before, what we installed, and what changed.

Two representative engagements. Written to show the mechanism, not to dazzle with numbers. Specific figures are verified and shared with permission during a fit call.

Marketing technology · ~$1.5M/yr

Learning what to cut, and where to double down

Situation

The company had reached meaningful scale, but its P&L was still read as a list of expenses rather than a decision system.

The pain

The founder could not clearly separate low-return work that should be standardized or outsourced from high-return capabilities that deserved more investment. Specialists were spending time on repeatable admin, and cash and spending decisions were not connected in one model.

Diagnosis

The reports described the past but could not answer what to change. There was no ROI owner for major operating expense, and tools and vendors were never reviewed as one portfolio.

System installed
  • P&L rebuilt by function, vendor, owner, and decision category
  • Operating-expense ROI map separating strategic, specialist, repeatable, and unnecessary work
  • Task map protecting specialist time and moving repeatable work to lower-cost capacity
  • Tool, vendor, subscription, and contractor overlap review
  • Driver-based forecast connecting spend to margin and runway
  • Monthly CFO Brief with decisions, owners, and deadlines
Decisions it enabled

The founder gained a repeatable method for deciding which expenses to eliminate, which work to delegate, and which high-return capabilities to reinvest in.

Result

A decision system replaced a list of expenses. The strongest outcome was not cost-cutting, it was a reliable way to allocate money and attention.

Results are client-specific and depend on implementation and market conditions. They are not guaranteed. Specific figures are shared, with client permission, during a fit call.

Luxury DTC e-commerce

From messy data to margin, inventory, and cash control

Situation

A luxury direct-to-consumer brand with fragmented financial and operational data that was difficult to reconcile.

The pain

The founder could not clearly state underlying business earnings or owner economics, lacked a trusted view of efficiency, and made inventory and reorder decisions without a forward cash view.

Diagnosis

Revenue was visible, but contribution profit after logistics, discounts, returns, and ad spend was not. Cash commitments around payroll, vendors, inventory, and collections needed a forward view.

System installed
  • Full P&L rebuilt by channel, product, direct cost, and function
  • Contribution margin after logistics, discounts, and returns
  • Inventory demand, reorder points, safety stock, and cash requirements
  • 13-week cash forecast across collections, payroll, vendors, and inventory
  • Vendor, logistics, and subcontractor review
Decisions it enabled

The founder could decide reorder timing and volume against a real cash view, see which channels and products actually made money, and renegotiate or replace weak vendor economics.

Result

Trusted contribution economics and a forward cash view, so growth decisions came from the numbers rather than instinct.

Results are client-specific and depend on implementation and market conditions. They are not guaranteed. Specific figures are shared, with client permission, during a fit call.

Want to see where you stand?

The Stack Score shows your gaps in about two minutes.

Get Your Stack Score