Audit technical asset lifecycle integrity

What it's for

Reveals technical assets that remain on the books without current value lineage, assessments or coherent retirement evidence before they become stranded capital or board surprises.

What you give it

Inputs split into evidence read from your connected systems, calibration your team owns, and numerical controls that affect precision but never the result's meaning.

{
  "as_of_period": 12,
  "asset_value_allocations": [
    {
      "active": true,
      "asset_id": "api-asset",
      "attribution_fraction": 1,
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "id": "api-margin",
      "value_source_id": "product-margin"
    }
  ],
  "lifecycle_events": [
    {
      "asset_id": "api-asset",
      "event_period": 0,
      "event_type": "placed_in_service",
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "id": "api-placed"
    },
    {
      "asset_id": "api-asset",
      "event_period": 10,
      "event_type": "recoverability_assessment",
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "id": "api-assessed"
    }
  ],
  "technical_assets": [
    {
      "carrying_value": 100,
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "expected_remaining_life_periods": 12,
      "id": "api-asset",
      "placed_in_service_period": 0,
      "retirement_period": null,
      "status": "active"
    }
  ],
  "value_sources": [
    {
      "annual_contribution": 300,
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "id": "product-margin"

What you get back

This is the actual output of running the example above — computed by the same function the platform calls, not an illustration.

{
  "asset_diagnostics": [
    {
      "active_value_source_count": 1,
      "allocated_annual_contribution": 300,
      "assessment_age_periods": 2,
      "asset_id": "api-asset",
      "carrying_value": 100,
      "expected_remaining_life_periods": 12,
      "failed_gates": [],
      "latest_recoverability_assessment_period": 10,
      "status": "active"
    }
  ],
  "assumptions": [
    "The asset register, finance carrying value, placed-in-service and retirement facts share one point-in-time perimeter; value-source allocations are management lineage rather than causal proof and one source cannot be credited above the governed cap.",
    "Recoverability assessments are authoritative owner events, not inferred from commit volume, repository age, ticket counts or code-generation output. Active value links and lifecycle status are complete for the declared asset boundary.",
    "This is a cross-system management integrity audit, not GAAP/IFRS impairment testing, tax or audit evidence. A failed gate requires controller, product and architecture reconciliation and never establishes misconduct or individual performance."
  ],
  "configuration": {
    "as_of_period": 12,
    "maximum_assessment_age_periods": 12,
    "maximum_retired_carrying_value": 0,
    "maximum_source_allocation_fraction": 1
  },
  "decision": "technical_asset_lifecycle_integrity_supported",
  "method": "technical_asset_lifecycle_value_lineage_integrity_audit_v1",
  "overallocated_value_sources": [],
  "summary": {
    "active_asset_count": 1,
    "allocation_count": 1,
    "asset_count": 1,
    "asset_count_with_failed_gate": 0,
    "carrying_value_with_integrity_issue": 0,
    "duplicate_annual_contribution_attribution": 0,
    "evidence_coverage": 1,
    "failed_gates": [],
    "lifecycle_event_count": 2,
    "overallocated_value_source_count": 0,
    "retired_asset_count": 0,
    "value_source_count": 1
  },
  "truncated_asset_count": 0
}

How it works

Statistical audit & measurement — Check whether a number is fit to decide on: coverage, timing, reconciliation, and the gaps a dashboard hides.

1. 1 Freeze the point-in-time technical asset register, finance carrying values, unique value sources, active allocation links and authoritative lifecycle events.
2. 2 Reconcile exactly one placed-in-service event, retirement status/date/event, remaining life, active value lineage and assessment freshness for every asset.
3. 3 Cap each unique value source's active attribution, expose duplicated contribution and carrying value attached to failed lifecycle gates, and require complete evidence before downstream modeling.

Before you trust it

Every tool in the catalog ships with the conditions under which its answer is meaningful — and the conditions under which it should abstain instead of guessing.

Calibrating it to your org

Calibration workflow

1. 1 Define the management decision, target outcome, aggregate unit, privacy boundary, cadence, and prediction/intervention horizon for this organization.
2. 2 Build a tenant-scoped historical cohort using only information available before each prediction or decision; preserve zero periods, censoring, assignment probabilities, and unresolved outcomes when the method requires them.
3. 3 Estimate statistical parameters on training history, but obtain costs, utilities, risk tolerance, practical-effect thresholds, capacity, and policy constraints from accountable decision owners.
4. 4 Validate on later time windows or held-out aggregate units at the deployment grain, against a simple baseline and the function-specific validation strategy.
5. 5 Deploy only if the returned decision clears evidence, overlap, calibration, robustness, and guardrail checks; warning, unsupported, schema-gap, and fallback decisions are abstentions.
6. 6 Monitor realized outcomes, data drift, coverage, and decision regret; recalibrate at a governed cadence or after a detected regime/definition change, never merely because a stakeholder dislikes the result.

Call it from your AI

You don't wire up 388 tools in your MCP client. The GitRevio MCP server exposes 18 tools, three of which let an agent search the catalog, read a tool's schema, and run it — so the assistant finds this one on its own.

gitrevio_capabilities_search
  { "q": "audit technicalasset lifecycle and value lineage" }
  → finds "audit_technical_asset_lifecycle_integrity"

gitrevio_capability_describe
  { "capability_id": "audit_technical_asset_lifecycle_integrity" }
  → returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page

gitrevio_capability_run
  { "capability_id": "audit_technical_asset_lifecycle_integrity", "arguments": { ... } }
  → returns the result shown above

Works in Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Continue.dev, Goose and Aider. See the MCP server.

Related tools

See every tool in Finance & unit economics →