Estimate estimate at completion distribution
Turn bottom-up component actuals and locally calibrated remaining-cost p50/p90 estimates into a correlated Gaussian-copula lognormal estimate-at-completion distribution with antithetic simulation, budget-breach probability, CVaR, correlation uplift, finite-draw error, and exactly reconciled component tail contributions.
What it's for
Extends Gitrevio's probabilistic forecasting promise from task duration into finance-grade bottom-up p10/p50/p75/p90 EAC, budget-breach, and shared-shock ranges.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| budget_at_completion | number ≥ 0 | Your calibration | Yes |
| components | array of objects (4 fields) ≥ 2 items | Evidence | Yes |
| correlations | array of objects (4 fields) | Evidence | Yes |
| max_detail_rows | integer ≥ 1, ≤ 500 | Numerical control | Optional |
| maximum_budget_breach_probability | number ≥ 0, ≤ 1 | Your calibration | Optional |
| maximum_cvar_eac | number ≥ 0 | Your calibration | Optional |
| seed | integer ≥ 0, ≤ 4294967295 | Numerical control | Optional |
| simulation_draws | integer ≥ 1000, ≤ 200000 | Numerical control | Optional |
| tail_probability | number > 0, ≤ 0.5 | Your calibration | Optional |
Each components
record
| Field | Type | Required |
|---|---|---|
| actual_cost_to_date | number (≥ 0) | Yes |
| id | string (non-empty) | Yes |
| remaining_cost_p50 | number (> 0) | Yes |
| remaining_cost_p90 | number (> 0) | Yes |
{
"budget_at_completion": 200,
"components": [
{
"actual_cost_to_date": 10,
"id": "backend",
"remaining_cost_p50": 50,
"remaining_cost_p90": 100
},
{
"actual_cost_to_date": 10,
"id": "migration",
"remaining_cost_p50": 50,
"remaining_cost_p90": 100
}
],
"correlations": [
{
"correlation": 0.8,
"id": "shared-delivery-shock",
"left_component_id": "backend",
"right_component_id": "migration"
}
],
"maximum_budget_breach_probability": 0.5,
"seed": 17,
"simulation_draws": 5000
} 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.
{
"component_tail_contributions": [
{
"actual_cost_to_date": 10,
"component_id": "backend",
"eac_tail_contribution": 137.7581,
"simulated_expected_remaining_cost": 57.8136,
"submitted_remaining_cost_p50": 50,
"submitted_remaining_cost_p90": 100
},
{
"actual_cost_to_date": 10,
"component_id": "migration",
"eac_tail_contribution": 137.2535,
"simulated_expected_remaining_cost": 57.7918,
"submitted_remaining_cost_p50": 50,
"submitted_remaining_cost_p90": 100
}
],
"decision": "estimate_at_completion_clears_governed_risk_gates",
"failed_gates": [],
"guardrails": [
"P50/P90 inputs must be calibrated on immutable estimates and later resolved component costs from this organization; Git activity is not a cost distribution.",
"The Gaussian copula preserves the submitted pair dependence but one lognormal component cannot represent multimodal scope change, cancellation, or omitted discrete risk events.",
"Correlation uplift is a model comparison, while component tail contribution is risk accounting; neither is causal credit, blame, or an employment signal.",
"This bottom-up forecast complements rather than silently replaces earned-value CPI/SPI, contractual commitments, or finance-approved rebaselines."
],
"method": "bottom_up_gaussian_copula_lognormal_eac_simulation_v1",
"simulation_diagnostics": {
"antithetic_draws": true,
"dkw_cdf_probability_error_bound_95": 0.0192,
"minimum_correlation_eigenvalue": 0.2,
"seed": 17,
"submitted_p50_is_lognormal_median": true,
"submitted_p90_sets_lognormal_scale": true
},
"summary": {
"actual_cost_to_date": 20,
"budget_at_completion": 200,
"component_count": 2,
"correlation_uplift_at_p90": 16.0894,
"cvar_eac": 275.0116,
"expected_eac": 135.6055,
"p10_eac": 72.9268, Truncated for display — the full payload is 58 lines.
How it works
Forecasting & survival — Estimate when something completes or fails, with censoring and unresolved work handled honestly rather than dropped.
- 1 Freeze the scope baseline and actual cost to date, calibrate each component remaining-cost median and p90 on comparable resolved work, and assemble a point-in-time positive-semidefinite dependence matrix from shared delivery and market shocks.
- 2 Convert each p50/p90 pair into a lognormal marginal, join marginals with the Gaussian copula, use seeded antithetic Monte Carlo to simulate total EAC, and compare its p90 with the same marginals under independence.
- 3 Report EAC quantiles, breach probability, CVaR, a DKW finite-draw probability bound, and component tail accounting; apply probability and CVaR gates without overwriting earned-value, contractual, or rebaseline evidence.
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.
- Component scope is exhaustive and non-overlapping; actual costs are finance-reconciled; p50/p90 estimates are calibrated without leakage; the lognormal marginal and Gaussian copula are adequate; dependence is PSD; and discrete cancellation, scope-change, and contractual risks are separately represented.
- A predictive interval or risk estimate is not a deadline promise, causal explanation, or individual-performance judgment.
- This is a bottom-up cost forecast—not a deterministic commitment, a replacement for accepted earned value or contracts, or a productivity/performance score; component tail contribution is dependence-sensitive risk accounting rather than causal blame.
Minimum evidence
- components: at least 2 rows/items
- correlations: required and organization-defined
- budget_at_completion: 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
- tenant-local p50/p90 calibration from point-in-time component estimates paired with later finance actuals, plus a PSD shared-shock dependence model and discrete-risk completeness audit
- component perimeter/non-overlap, currency/horizon, actual-cost cutoff, scope/rebaseline policy, work classes, marginal family, dependence epoch, budget, risk gates, draws, seed, and finance/PMO ownership
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": "turn bottomup component actuals and locally" }
→ finds "estimate_estimate_at_completion_distribution"
gitrevio_capability_describe
{ "capability_id": "estimate_estimate_at_completion_distribution" }
→ returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page
gitrevio_capability_run
{ "capability_id": "estimate_estimate_at_completion_distribution", "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
Estimate budget contingency reserve
Size an engineering or investment contingency reserve from one coherent joint cost distribution, stress represented scenario probabilities inside a governed total-variation radius, preserve natural offsets, and exactly reconcile robust tail overrun to aggregate cost items.
Optimize reserve follow on allocation
Solve a two-stage follow-on capital problem: choose how much reserve to hold now, then choose at most one funding tier per company conditional only on the signal partition genuinely observable later, with coherent scenario value, opportunity cost, CVaR, a reserve Pareto frontier, value of available information, and exact-or-disclosed supported-policy search.
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.