Skip to content

Standing facts

  • 08 engines · one evidence model
  • 02 arenas · francophone Europe / Africa
  • Entry from 2 minutes · free, no account needed
  • Every engagement ends in a verdict , never a slide deck
  • Fees anchored to value at stake · never consultant days
  • Every instrument published blank · 33 rows in the public register
MarginLeak · No. 01

Your revenue is visible. Your margin leakage is not.

How true profitability by customer, product, channel and payment behaviour hides in the data you already own.

By Bruno Hounkpati · 1 min readComputed from the measured word count of the body text, at 200 words per minute. Titles, citations and calls to action are excluded. · Published ·

Hypothesis

In a mid-market group, reported margin is an opinion. The cash-true margin — by customer, product, channel and payment behaviour — is already inside the ERP, and it rarely matches the management pack.

Evidence

  • The four axes we recompute together (customer, product, channel, payment behaviour) are almost always present as raw fields; what is missing is the join that treats a late-paying customer as a discount, not a receivable. Once the join is applied, the top-decile customer table reorders.
  • Discount registers, rebate accruals and shipping allocations sit in different systems and rarely reconcile to the P&L presented to the board. Recomputing them against the cash ledger, rather than against the sales system, is where the leakage first becomes visible.
  • Payment behaviour is the axis most often missing entirely. Treating days-sales-outstanding as a customer-level margin adjustment, not a treasury metric, changes both the pricing decision and the credit decision — and both are usually made by different people from different reports.

Verdict

Before you approve the next commercial plan, insist on one page: cash-true margin by customer, product, channel and payment behaviour, reconciled to the cash ledger. If the page does not exist, the plan is priced on an opinion.

Provenance of this note

No jurisdiction is recorded for the casework behind this note, so it is published as a general practitioner observation rather than as evidence from a named legal or accounting regime.

Practitioner observation — not a measured study. No baseline and no sample size are published for this note, so it must not be read as a quantified claim.

Owner
Bruno Hounkpati · Operating Chair
Attribution
Stredge Partners casework — engagements re-opened under the evidence method. Individual engagements are confidential.
Measurement window
1 January 2024 – 30 June 2026
Baseline
Not published
Sample size
Not published
Method
Practitioner review of engagement records. No controlled sample was drawn and no baseline was measured, so this note states a pattern, not a quantity.

Citations

  1. Instrument Stredge Partners · MarginLeak X-Ray™ method statement, v2026.2 (shared on request before an engagement letter).
  2. Related note The pilot-to-P&L problem (AI, honestly · No. 08) — in preparation.

Related notes

  • The Discipline · No. 01
    Evidence before scale
    Read →
  • The Discipline · No. 02
    Written natively, never machine-translated
    Read →
  • The Discipline · No. 03
    The operating chair
    Read →
Take this to your desk

Bring us one decision in this framework. We reply within one working day.

Send me this note

We will email you this note, and add you to the evidence notes if you opt in.

Arenas & Situations We Know
Family-owned groups·Founder-led companies·PE portfolio companies·Country subsidiaries·France · Belgium · Switzerland · Luxembourg·Côte d'Ivoire · Senegal · Benin · Togo·Cameroon · Morocco · Guinea·Paris · Brussels · Geneva corridors·United Kingdom · publishing entity base

Evidence for your next high-stakes decision, starting with nine gates.

Subscribe to receive our evidence notes and decision briefings.

Double opt-in: we send one confirmation email first. Unsubscribe any time. We never share your address.

Run the nine gates →