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
Example input
{
  "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.

Example output
{
  "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. 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. 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. 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. 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": "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.

Statistical audit & measurement

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.

Statistical audit & measurement

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.

Sequential Bayesian & bandits

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.

Constrained optimization

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.

Statistical audit & measurement

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.

Statistical audit & measurement

See every tool in Delivery forecasting & commitments →

Ready to See Your Engineering work clearly?

Request a free demo