DC

Insights

15 findings, ordered by commercial weightEvidence from the live BC tenant, 11 Aug 2026
Replaces: the audit deck nobody opens twice, and the spreadsheets built around it
4,500item locations priced below cost or with no cost at allRead the finding
1.5%of the forecasting engine's buying advice reaches an orderRead the finding
41.5average days late across 400 released ordersRead the finding
0 of 5approval workflows running, since June 2025Read the finding
Ask the findingsOne question, answered from the figures on this page and nowhere else.15 findings, all cited
The answer is built only from the figures above, each of which names the file and row it came from. Where the page does not hold an answer it says so rather than reaching for one, and no figure is ever estimated, extrapolated or rounded for effect.

What the evidence says is going wrong, ordered by what it costs, each with the action that closes it. Every number names the file it came from.

02Buying and stockHighest impact

MSC pay for a forecasting engine and then buy almost none of what it recommends.

5,300supplier recommendations generated in six months
78downloaded and keyed into BC by hand
1.5%of the engine's buying advice that lands
0transfer recommendations used
Six months of recommendations, and what happened to themGenerated by Netstockapprox 5,300Downloaded by planners78Written back automaticallynone, there is no write backTransfer recommendations used0The six months to 11 Aug 2026, across three buyer and planner users.
Why it matters

Every recommendation that does not land is stock bought late or cash tied up in stock nobody needed.

What to do

Bring the recommendation in as a working queue rather than a download. Close the transfer gap first, it is the cheapest stock MSC already own.

Why it ranks 02

Ranked second: the licence and three planners are paid for, then overruled by hand.

Source · msc-bc-audit/pain-points-and-opportunities.csv rows PP-018 (78 of approx 5.3k downloaded in 6 months) and PP-017 (0 DC orders downloaded in 6 months while BC shows daily transfers); netstock-used-unused-matrix.csv rows 6 and 7; bc-netstock-integration-map.csv row 4 (no automated write back observed, 3 buyer and planner users).
08Buying and stockHigh impact

A high data quality score is hiding the field the forecast leans on hardest. Most of the estate has no lead time at all.

97.75%the vendor's own data quality score
19,900item locations with no lead time
3,000with no supplier link
233overdue purchase orders
The gaps behind the scoreNo lead timeapprox 19.9kNo supplier assignedapprox 3.0kOverdue sales ordersapprox 1.1kOverdue purchase orders233Issue counts published beside the 97.75 percent score, same dashboard, 11 Aug 2026.
Why it matters

Lead time drives safety stock, so a missing one becomes an avoidable stockout or money sitting on a shelf.

What to do

Make lead time a required, owned, dated field on the item and supplier record, then manage the gap count instead of the vendor's score.

Why it ranks 08

Ranked eighth: it is the input the buying decisions above depend on.

Source · msc-bc-audit/netstock-functionality-register.csv row NSF-012 (score 97.75 percent with itemised issue counts); pain-points-and-opportunities.csv row PP-019, confidence high; system-of-record-matrix.csv row 4 (lead times sourced from ERP, 19.9k gaps to fix in migration).
12Buying and stockModerate

The two sites are not running the same business. West turns stock nearly twice as fast as East and still misses its fill rate, which is the transfer gap showing up in service.

93%fill rate at EAST, target 96 percent
87%fill rate at WEST, same target
5.4stock turns at EAST
8.9stock turns at WEST
Fill rate against targetTarget, both sites96%EAST93%WEST87%Netstock network performance, 11 Aug 2026. EAST approx 27.9k item locations, WEST approx 26.6k.
Why it matters

Orders nobody could serve, from a business that had the goods somewhere. The same money, in the wrong building.

What to do

Fix the transfer path before buying more stock. The engine already produces the transfer recommendations nobody uses.

Why it ranks 12

Ranked twelfth: real service loss, and the visible face of the transfer gap.

Source · msc-bc-audit/netstock-functionality-register.csv row NSF-016 (5 locations, approx 70.4k item locations, EAST approx 27.9k and WEST approx 26.6k, fill rate EAST 93 percent vs target 96 and WEST 87 percent vs 96, stock turns EAST 5.4 and WEST 8.9), confidence high; pain-points-and-opportunities.csv row PP-017.
What it adds up toIf you read one thing on this page
Stop the leak

A margin floor checked at the point of sale. Highest value change on this page, and it is a rule, not a rebuild.

Show the price

Name the winning level on every line. Thirteen levels of precedence stop being a liability and start being the asset they should be.

Buy what the engine says

Moving stock MSC already own between two sites they run is the cheapest service fix available. Today none of it happens.

Bill sooner, prove control

Late orders, uncounted quotes and stalled approvals all fix the same way: the work goes back on a screen with a name against it.

Where these figures come fromIncluding how the order was decided

Two sources, and every card names its own. The pricing work already built at gitlab.personify.tech/msc/msc-data-project, read directly, file and line quoted. And the read only audit of the live MSUPPLY LIVE Business Central tenant of 11 Aug 2026, the Netstock UI audit of the same day, the AL source read from the tenant's own extensions, and Product Scope chapter 14.

The data project publishes rules, not results. Its findings tables are declared and never written, its seed creates nothing and every count it shows is computed live and discarded, so what it contributes here is its thresholds, its comparison rules and its own record of what is still to build. Its mock fixtures are never shown as findings.

Two caveats travel with the audit numbers and both stand on their cards. The 999 plus open quotes is a display ceiling, so a floor rather than a count. The 400 delayed orders was recorded at medium confidence. The 650,000 price lines is the data project's own working figure for the size of the job, written to size a page cap, not a verified count.

The order is a commercial judgement, not a measurement. Each finding states the basis for its placing, built only from the figures cited on it. No pound value is attached to a finding the source did not price.