Simulation & Prediction
Scenario Simulation Workspace
Compare current state, no action, recommended, upside and downside scenarios for one journey or issue.
Journey
Interconnect & Roaming
KPI under simulation
Interconnect leakage
Current
0.6%
Target
No stored target
Scenario outcome cards
Base case
Current trajectory with in-flight initiatives only.
- Stated outcome
- Termination cost increase: +$4.8M / yr
- Risk / trade-off
- —
- Interconnect leakage in 6 mo
- 0.6% ACTUAL
Renegotiate top-3
Reciprocal rate deals with top-3 partners.
- Stated outcome
- $1.1M / yr saved
- Risk / trade-off
- Partner pushback
- Interconnect leakage in 6 mo
- 0.22% SCENARIO
- Expected value
- Cost reduced: USD 1.1M expected
Re-route via hubs
Route traffic via lower-cost carrier hubs.
- Stated outcome
- $1.5M / yr saved
- Risk / trade-off
- Quality risk on routes
- Interconnect leakage in 6 mo
- not modelled
Accept new rates
No renegotiation.
- Stated outcome
- $0
- Risk / trade-off
- Margin keeps falling
- Interconnect leakage in 6 mo
- not modelled
Not stored for this journey: No Action, Upside, Downside. Shown as a gap rather than invented.
Scenario comparison — stated value vs cost/risk (USD M)
Amounts parsed from each scenario's stored results; ★ = recommended. Non-monetary outcomes plot as zero.
Risk / return matrix
Top-left = high value for low stated cost/risk.
Interconnect leakage — actual vs scenario paths
Same projection as the journey Predict stage and the Forecasting page. Open full forecast →
Comparison table
| Scenario | Role | Assumptions | Projected KPI (6 mo) | Stated impact | Risk / trade-off |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base case | Current State | Current trajectory with in-flight initiatives only. | 0.6% | Baseline | — |
| Renegotiate top-3 | Recommended | Reciprocal rate deals with top-3 partners. | 0.22% | $1.1M / yr saved | Partner pushback |
| Re-route via hubs | Alternative | Route traffic via lower-cost carrier hubs. | — | $1.5M / yr saved | Quality risk on routes |
| Accept new rates | Alternative | No renegotiation. | — | $0 | Margin keeps falling |
Scenario → decision
Recommended scenario: Renegotiate top-3 — $1.1M / yr saved; trade-off: Partner pushback.
No decision is saved here; the decision is recorded in the journey at Decide.
Source data, assumptions, methodology & limitations
Source data
- Telecom KPI data (current period, target, prior)
- Historical KPI trend data (monthly history Apr–Sep 2026)
- Scenario library (assumptions, results, recommended flag)
- Value realization records (expected / actual value)
- Evidence records
Assumptions
- No action: continues the 6-month stored trend (+0.06 per month).
- Recommended action: reverses the trend at the same monthly rate (no stored target).
- Scenario outcomes, costs and risks are as stored for each scenario.
Methodology
- Scenarios of the selected journey are ordered Current State → No Action → Recommended → Upside → Downside → Alternatives.
- With an originating issue, alternatives sharing no words with the issue move to the bottom of the table.
- Projected KPI per scenario uses the shared deterministic forecast; only Current State, No Action and Recommended are modelled.
Limitations
- Scenario outcomes are governed figures stored with each scenario — they are not re-computed by a simulation engine.
- Forecasts are straight-line projections of six stored months; they ignore seasonality, shocks and interactions between measures.
- Many KPIs have no stored target; where absent, the recommended path reverses the trend at the same monthly rate.
- No downside scenario is stored for any journey; downside coverage is shown as a gap rather than invented.
| Evidence type | Item | Source |
|---|---|---|
| methodology | Interconnect & Roaming methodology Reconcile wholesale billing with partner invoices; Track margin by route and partner; Flag settlement variances. | Finance Planning Dataset |
| limitation | Settlement timing Partner settlements reconcile 60 days in arrears. | Billing Warehouse |