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