Example Decision Scenario 1
Whether to hold or exit a depreciating asset
A large operator was holding a fleet of assets approaching the later stages of their lifecycle.
Book values suggested holding, but maintenance costs were rising unevenly and resale markets were softening.
The decision wasn’t “sell or keep” — it was when the balance tipped.
The memo tested:
How sensitive the outcome was to maintenance escalation
How resale value behaved across different exit windows
Whether holding longer actually improved cash outcomes, or just delayed losses
The recommendation identified a narrow exit window where risk-adjusted returns peaked, and clarified what would need to change in costs or market conditions to justify holding beyond that point.
Example Decision Scenario 2
Pricing a long-term contract under cost uncertainty
An operator was negotiating a multi-year contract with fixed pricing while input costs were volatile and historical averages were no longer reliable.
The risk wasn’t underpricing — it was locking in the wrong assumptions.
The memo focused on:
Which cost components actually drove downside risk
Where variability mattered vs where it didn’t
How much buffer was required to protect margin without killing competitiveness
Rather than a single “safe” price, the output showed where pricing broke, and what contractual or commercial levers mattered more than the headline rate.
Example Decision Scenario 3
Whether to standardise or diversify specifications
A fleet decision was being framed as a debate between standardisation (simplicity, cost control) and diversification (flexibility, resale optionality).
Both sides had valid arguments — neither side could quantify where the real risk sat.
The memo reframed the question by:
Isolating the few specification differences that actually affected lifecycle cost
Testing whether resale optionality was real or theoretical
Clarifying how operational complexity scaled non-linearly beyond a certain point
The recommendation wasn’t absolute — it defined a boundary where standardisation made sense, and where deviation was genuinely justified.
Example Decision Scenario 4
Deciding whether to delay a capital commitment
An operator was under pressure to commit capital while market signals were conflicting.
Waiting reduced risk — but also created opportunity cost and operational friction.
The memo examined:
What information waiting would realistically reveal
Which uncertainties would remain regardless of timing
How costly delay actually was once knock-on effects were included
The conclusion wasn’t “wait” or “buy now,” but a conditional recommendation: act unless a specific set of signals emerged within a defined timeframe.