Company
Revenue maximisation and savings
Two words that sound like marketing until you look at where channel money actually goes. Then they become an engineering problem with a very specific shape.
Our vision
A world where no business loses margin to a process nobody chose.
Manufacturers and distributors do not lose money mainly through bad decisions. They lose it through the gaps between systems — the entitlement nobody claimed, the claim nobody could afford to validate, the transaction that failed to match and errored nowhere. That loss is not a commercial failure. It is an unfinished piece of engineering, and it is fixable.
Our mission
Make every incentive, price and claim visible, recoverable and explainable — on one ledger, on any ERP, in weeks.
Concretely: hold agreement terms as executable rules so entitlement claims itself; validate every claim line rather than a sample; resolve partner identity so nothing matches by accident or fails by silence; accrue from transactions so the balance sheet can be interrogated; and put the price you set and the money that comes back off it in the same view, before the deal is signed.
Principles
What we will not trade away
These are the constraints we design under. They are also the reasons we sometimes ship less than a competitor and stand behind it longer.
Every number must be explainable
If a balance cannot be drilled back to the transaction lines that produced it, it is not a number — it is an opinion. We build so that any figure can be defended three months later, to an auditor, without a spreadsheet.
Nothing fails silently
The most expensive failures in this domain do not error. An unmatched transaction, an unraised claim, an expired authorisation still being paid. We convert silence into owned, measured work.
The agreement is the source of truth
Where the contract is a document and the configuration is data, drift is inevitable and asymmetric. The executed agreement should be the thing the engine runs — not a representation of it.
Automation must be governable
AI that answers is useful. AI that acts needs policy, a review gate and an immutable record. We would rather ship less automation that survives an audit than more that does not.
Weeks, not years
A rebate implementation that takes eighteen months has already failed — the programmes will have changed. Fixed budget, sprint-based delivery, working software early, and no change-order games.
Benchmarks are questions, not promises
We publish ranges because they start better conversations than case studies. But the only number that matters for your business is the one measured against your own data, and we say so.
What savings means here
Two directions, one ledger
Revenue maximisation is the sell side: charging the price the deal actually deserves, seeing the concession stack before the last approval rather than after settlement, and stopping the slow erosion that nobody decided on.
Savings is the buy side: collecting every rebate you earned from suppliers, including the three hundred small agreements nobody has time to manage, and refusing to pay claims that do not hold up to a line-level check.
Most companies run these as separate functions in separate systems, which is precisely why neither can see the other. A distributor cannot price correctly without knowing its rebate-adjusted cost; a manufacturer cannot know its net price until channel claims settle. Putting both on one ledger is not a packaging decision. It is the only way the number becomes computable.
Hold us to it.
The fastest way to test whether any of this is real is a diagnostic against a quarter of your own data. We will tell you what we find, including when the answer is that your programme is already in good shape.