Calculate break even delivery date
Find the latest economically supported delivery period across coherent value, remaining-cost, recurring-contribution, operating-cost, value-decay, cost-growth and delay-cost scenarios; enforce expected NPV, positive-NPV probability and CVaR gates while keeping the economic deadline distinct from a completion forecast.
What it's for
Shows the last date when an initiative still makes economic sense—and how much value each period of waiting destroys—without confusing urgency with a delivery forecast.
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.
| Field | Type | Role | Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| benefit_duration_periods | integer ≥ 1, ≤ 240 | Your calibration | Yes |
| discount_rate_per_period | number ≥ -0.99, ≤ 10 | Your calibration | Optional |
| horizon_periods | integer ≥ 0, ≤ 240 | Your calibration | Yes |
| max_detail_rows | integer ≥ 1, ≤ 500 | Numerical control | Optional |
| maximum_cvar_loss | number ≥ 0 | Your calibration | Optional |
| minimum_expected_npv | number | Your calibration | Optional |
| minimum_probability_positive_npv | number ≥ 0, ≤ 1 | Your calibration | Optional |
| scenarios | array of objects (9 fields) ≥ 2 items | Evidence | Yes |
| tail_probability | number > 0, ≤ 0.5 | Your calibration | Optional |
Each scenarios
record
| Field | Type | Required |
|---|---|---|
| delay_cost_per_period | number (≥ 0) | Yes |
| delivery_cost_growth_rate_per_period | number (≥ -0.99, ≤ 10) | Yes |
| gross_value_at_delivery | number (≥ 0) | Yes |
| id | string (non-empty) | Yes |
| probability | number (≥ 0, ≤ 1) | Yes |
| recurring_contribution_per_period | number | Yes |
| recurring_operating_cost_per_period | number (≥ 0) | Yes |
| remaining_delivery_cost | number (≥ 0) | Yes |
| value_decay_rate_per_period | number (≥ 0, ≤ 1) | Yes |
{
"benefit_duration_periods": 12,
"discount_rate_per_period": 0.01,
"horizon_periods": 12,
"minimum_probability_positive_npv": 0.7,
"scenarios": [
{
"delay_cost_per_period": 4,
"delivery_cost_growth_rate_per_period": 0.02,
"gross_value_at_delivery": 200,
"id": "base",
"probability": 0.7,
"recurring_contribution_per_period": 20,
"recurring_operating_cost_per_period": 5,
"remaining_delivery_cost": 70,
"value_decay_rate_per_period": 0.08
},
{
"delay_cost_per_period": 7,
"delivery_cost_growth_rate_per_period": 0.05,
"gross_value_at_delivery": 120,
"id": "stress",
"probability": 0.3,
"recurring_contribution_per_period": 12,
"recurring_operating_cost_per_period": 6,
"remaining_delivery_cost": 90,
"value_decay_rate_per_period": 0.15
}
]
} 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.
{
"configuration": {
"benefit_duration_periods": 12,
"discount_rate_per_period": 0.01,
"horizon_periods": 12,
"tail_probability": 0.1
},
"decision": "delivery_economic_window_supported",
"delivery_period_economics": [
{
"cvar_loss": 0,
"delivery_period": 0,
"economically_supported": true,
"expected_npv": 239.8218,
"failed_gates": [],
"probability_positive_npv": 1
},
{
"cvar_loss": 0,
"delivery_period": 1,
"economically_supported": true,
"expected_npv": 213.8048,
"failed_gates": [],
"probability_positive_npv": 1
},
{
"cvar_loss": 0,
"delivery_period": 2,
"economically_supported": true,
"expected_npv": 189.8179,
"failed_gates": [],
"probability_positive_npv": 1
},
{
"cvar_loss": 0,
"delivery_period": 3,
"economically_supported": true,
"expected_npv": 167.6167,
"failed_gates": [],
"probability_positive_npv": 1
},
{
"cvar_loss": 6.9729,
"delivery_period": 4, Truncated for display — the full payload is 151 lines.
How it works
Forecasting & survival — Estimate when something completes or fails, with censoring and unresolved work handled honestly rather than dropped.
- 1 Freeze finance-owned scenarios for value at delivery, remaining cost, recurring contribution and operating cost, decay, cost growth and interim delay cost on one cadence and incremental perimeter.
- 2 Replay every candidate delivery period through the horizon, discount delivery and recurring cash economics, and calculate expected NPV, probability of positive NPV and downside CVaR.
- 3 Return the latest period clearing all governed gates, the first later failure and scenario value lost by waiting; combine this boundary with a separately calibrated delivery-time distribution.
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.
Assumptions & guardrails
- Training examples precede their outcomes, censoring and unresolved work are represented, and deployment populations remain comparable to validation cohorts.
- Scenarios are coherent point-in-time joint futures; gross and recurring value are not duplicated; remaining cost excludes sunk cost; decay, growth, delay cost, duration, cadence, currency, tax and discounting share one finance definition.
- A predictive interval or risk estimate is not a deadline promise, causal explanation, or individual-performance judgment.
- This is an economic window rather than an ETA or imposed deadline; a narrow window supports scope, sequencing, option or funding review and never unsafe pace or an individual performance conclusion.
Minimum evidence
- scenarios: at least 2 rows/items
- horizon_periods: required and organization-defined
- benefit_duration_periods: required and organization-defined
How to validate it
Use chronological train/calibration/test windows, compare proper scores and decision value with a simple baseline, and recalibrate only from outcomes resolved after prediction time.
Calibrating it to your org
Same for everyone
The mathematical kernel, validation rules, method version, and JSON output semantics are organization-independent; no tenant-trained coefficients or company benchmark is embedded in the function.
Specific to you
- finance-reconciled initiative decision case joining immutable forecast vintage, remaining scope/cost, causal incremental benefit, adoption and value-decay evidence, operating cost and delay externalities without counting sunk cost or duplicated benefits
- initiative/comparator perimeter, remaining versus sunk cost, value/cost/currency/tax/horizon/cadence, benefit duration, decay/growth/delay assumptions, scenario law, discounting, NPV/probability/CVaR/tail gates and accountable portfolio authority
Calibration workflow
- 1 Define the management decision, target outcome, aggregate unit, privacy boundary, cadence, and prediction/intervention horizon for this organization.
- 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 Estimate statistical parameters on training history, but obtain costs, utilities, risk tolerance, practical-effect thresholds, capacity, and policy constraints from accountable decision owners.
- 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 Deploy only if the returned decision clears evidence, overlap, calibration, robustness, and guardrail checks; warning, unsupported, schema-gap, and fallback decisions are abstentions.
- 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": "find the latest economically supported delivery" }
→ finds "calculate_break_even_delivery_date"
gitrevio_capability_describe
{ "capability_id": "calculate_break_even_delivery_date" }
→ returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page
gitrevio_capability_run
{ "capability_id": "calculate_break_even_delivery_date", "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
Calculate incremental cost effectiveness ratio
Construct a probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness frontier from jointly aligned cost and outcome scenarios; remove strict and extended dominance before calculating ICERs, and select by expected net benefit plus a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve at organization-owned willingness-to-pay thresholds.
Estimate productivity rebound effect
Estimate how much aggregate capacity released by a productivity intervention is absorbed by induced output or workload using stacked matched-cohort log difference-in-differences; separate fixed-output efficiency, induced output and total resource use, audit pretrends, reconcile the log identity, and cluster-bootstrap rebound uncertainty including backfire above 100 percent.
Rank experiments by expected information gain
Rank prospective experiments by Bayesian mutual information and decision-aware expected value of sample information across explicit hypotheses, result likelihoods and decision payoffs; price usability, monetary cost and decision delay, expose recommendation-change probability, and preserve a value-information-cost-delay Pareto set.
Audit commercial technical commitment integrity
Audit signed commercial promises against explicitly allocated technical scope, dependency order, funded capacity, acceptance criteria and evidence; expose orphan scope, double allocation, cycles, late plans and maximum contractual penalty without interpreting legal rights from engineering activity.
Audit decision execution fidelity
Audit whether approved decisions actually became verified implementation at the promised aggregate-unit and component grain, with whole-unit bootstrap uncertainty and simultaneous gates for fidelity, overdue scope, unverifiable evidence, exceptions and critical gaps.
Audit KPI threshold bunching
Detect a post-target excess concentration immediately above a governed KPI threshold: compare within-unit pre/post local mass and above-versus-below mirror asymmetry, bootstrap whole units, report density bins and a smoothed log-density jump, and explicitly refuse to equate bunching with individual gaming or intent.