Estimate delivery delay value at risk

Translate aligned portfolio completion-date draws into expected delay loss, VaR/CVaR, dependence amplification, and initiative tail attribution.

What it's for

Connects probabilistic engineering delivery directly to finance-approved revenue or margin exposure for executives and investors.

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
confidence_level number ≥ 0.8, ≤ 0.99 Your calibration Optional
independence_draws integer ≥ 200, ≤ 100000 Your calibration Optional
initiatives array of objects (5 fields) Evidence Yes
seed integer Numerical control Optional
value_horizon_day number ≥ 0 Your calibration Yes

Each initiatives record

Field Type Required
completion_day_samples array of number (≥ 50 items) Yes
daily_value_at_risk number (≥ 0) Yes
fixed_loss_if_target_missed number (≥ 0) Optional
id string (non-empty) Yes
target_day number (≥ 0) Yes
Example input
{
  "confidence_level": 0.8,
  "independence_draws": 200,
  "initiatives": [
    {
      "completion_day_samples": [
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,
        10,

Truncated for display — the full payload is 122 lines.

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
{
  "assumptions": [
    "Completion samples are aligned joint posterior draws, so the same index represents the same portfolio future.",
    "Daily value and fixed miss losses are finance-approved marginal exposure estimates, not total company valuation.",
    "Loss stops accumulating at the supplied value horizon; benefits from delivery before target are conservatively excluded.",
    "Tail attribution is descriptive of modeled portfolio scenarios and does not by itself identify a causal owner of delay."
  ],
  "dependence": {
    "aligned_portfolio_cvar": 2000,
    "independence_baseline_cvar": 1250,
    "tail_amplification_from_dependence": 750
  },
  "initiatives": [
    {
      "completion_day_p50": 10,
      "completion_day_p90": 20,
      "expected_delay_days": 2,
      "expected_value_at_risk": 200,
      "initiative_id": "enterprise_launch",
      "probability_target_missed": 0.2,
      "tail_cvar_contribution": 1000,
      "tail_cvar_share": 0.5
    },
    {
      "completion_day_p50": 10,
      "completion_day_p90": 30,
      "expected_delay_days": 4,
      "expected_value_at_risk": 200,
      "initiative_id": "expansion",
      "probability_target_missed": 0.2,
      "tail_cvar_contribution": 1000,
      "tail_cvar_share": 0.5
    }
  ],
  "method": "aligned_delivery_delay_value_at_risk_v1",
  "portfolio": {
    "conditional_value_at_risk": 2000,
    "expected_value_at_risk": 400,
    "probability_all_targets_met": 0.8,
    "probability_any_target_missed": 0.2,
    "value_at_risk": 2000
  },
  "simulation": {
    "aligned_draws": 50,

Truncated for display — the full payload is 50 lines.

How it works

Forecasting & survival — Estimate when something completes or fails, with censoring and unresolved work handled honestly rather than dropped.

  1. 1 Translate aligned portfolio completion-date draws into expected delay loss, VaR/CVaR, dependence amplification, and initiative tail attribution.
  2. 2 Evaluate the method-specific diagnostics and gates returned by the function, then abstain unless the declared decision clears them under locally governed thresholds.

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.
  • A predictive interval or risk estimate is not a deadline promise, causal explanation, or individual-performance judgment.

Minimum evidence

  • initiatives: required and organization-defined
  • value_horizon_day: 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

  • metric/outcome definitions, entity grain, observation window, costs, thresholds, priors, and constraints represented by the function inputs

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": "translate aligned portfolio completiondate draws into" }
  → finds "estimate_delivery_delay_value_at_risk"

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

gitrevio_capability_run
  { "capability_id": "estimate_delivery_delay_value_at_risk", "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

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

Audit release risk prediction integrity

Audit a complete eligible-change release-risk cohort for point-in-time prediction lineage, exact change-to-deployment linkage, mature mutually exclusive outcomes, selective labels, score-triggered intervention contamination, calibration and false alarms before the score influences a release decision.

Forecasting & survival

Audit sunk cost escalation

Audit whether cumulative sunk cost predicts aggregate project continuation after project fixed effects, checkpoint time, forward value, success probability, remaining cost, and future irreversibility, with project-cluster bootstrap uncertainty.

Statistical audit & measurement

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.

Forecasting & survival

See every tool in Delivery forecasting & commitments →

Ready to See Your Engineering work clearly?

Request a free demo