{ "kind": "loop", "value": "52-sensitivity-test", "collectionKey": "slides:loop:52-sensitivity-test:all-document-kinds:all-producers:all-orientations", "filters": { "documentKinds": [], "sourceTypes": [], "orientations": [] }, "total": 53, "page": 1, "pageSize": 24, "pageCount": 3, "rows": [ { "docId": "019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-bcd96a41e961", "docSlug": "79118496bc1330a5", "documentTitle": "Barclays Q32023 FI Presentation", "authorId": "Barclays", "authorName": "Barclays", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "equity_research", "sourceTypeLabel": "Equity research", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 21, "slideType": "kpi_dashboard", "function": "quantify_impact", "notes": "Barclays Q3 2023 Results slide.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test asset quality under macro scenarios and exposures", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-bcd96a41e961/21", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-bcd96a41e961", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-bcd96a41e961#slide-21", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 26, "from": 21, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019dd95a-08f7-737a-a004-09613ef67dc7", "evidence": "CRE drilldown, macro variables, scenario analysis, coverage ratios, corporate exposure.", "position": 5, "objective": "Stress-test asset quality under macro scenarios and exposures", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 70, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 38, "from": 17, "beatId": "019dd95a-07a6-74c7-9029-920f4e2cbd5a", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Asset quality, capital, leverage, MREL, deposits and liquidity all evidenced.", "position": 4, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "docSlug": "ee507dc260892073", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 106, "slideType": "data_table", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "The slide uses a BCG-style table format with nested data points in parentheses. A green circle highlights the final total overlap figure.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555/106", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555#slide-106", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 106, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-2974563388cb", "evidence": "Eight-page 'Beskrivelse af overlap' section quantifying overlap (-22, -49, -3) and overhead-rate sensitivity.", "position": 18, "objective": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 85, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-08b5faaeae90", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Per-area sizing, 45 one-pagers with provenue, overlap reconciliation.", "position": 4, "confidence": 95, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 138, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-1b0067a923da", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Detailed 45 initiative one-pagers + implementation timeline.", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "docSlug": "ee507dc260892073", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 107, "slideType": "data_table", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "The table lists specific efficiency proposals (EF 8, EF 24, EF 30) and their overlaps with other operational areas or administrative processes.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555/107", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555#slide-107", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 106, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-2974563388cb", "evidence": "Eight-page 'Beskrivelse af overlap' section quantifying overlap (-22, -49, -3) and overhead-rate sensitivity.", "position": 18, "objective": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 85, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-08b5faaeae90", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Per-area sizing, 45 one-pagers with provenue, overlap reconciliation.", "position": 4, "confidence": 95, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 138, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-1b0067a923da", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Detailed 45 initiative one-pagers + implementation timeline.", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "docSlug": "ee507dc260892073", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 108, "slideType": "appendix_data", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "The table shows specific overlaps between efficiency initiatives, noting that some have zero impact while others show negative values (savings/reductions).", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555/108", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555#slide-108", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 106, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-2974563388cb", "evidence": "Eight-page 'Beskrivelse af overlap' section quantifying overlap (-22, -49, -3) and overhead-rate sensitivity.", "position": 18, "objective": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 85, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-08b5faaeae90", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Per-area sizing, 45 one-pagers with provenue, overlap reconciliation.", "position": 4, "confidence": 95, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 138, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-1b0067a923da", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Detailed 45 initiative one-pagers + implementation timeline.", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "docSlug": "ee507dc260892073", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 109, "slideType": "appendix_data", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "The table lists specific efficiency proposals (EF 14, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24) and their interdependencies.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555/109", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555#slide-109", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 106, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-2974563388cb", "evidence": "Eight-page 'Beskrivelse af overlap' section quantifying overlap (-22, -49, -3) and overhead-rate sensitivity.", "position": 18, "objective": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 85, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-08b5faaeae90", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Per-area sizing, 45 one-pagers with provenue, overlap reconciliation.", "position": 4, "confidence": 95, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 138, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-1b0067a923da", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Detailed 45 initiative one-pagers + implementation timeline.", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "docSlug": "ee507dc260892073", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 110, "slideType": "data_table", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "The table shows zero values for all years, indicating no financial overlap identified for these specific proposals.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555/110", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555#slide-110", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 106, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-2974563388cb", "evidence": "Eight-page 'Beskrivelse af overlap' section quantifying overlap (-22, -49, -3) and overhead-rate sensitivity.", "position": 18, "objective": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 85, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-08b5faaeae90", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Per-area sizing, 45 one-pagers with provenue, overlap reconciliation.", "position": 4, "confidence": 95, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 138, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-1b0067a923da", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Detailed 45 initiative one-pagers + implementation timeline.", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "docSlug": "ee507dc260892073", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 111, "slideType": "data_table", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "The table shows negative values representing the overlap (deduction) between efficiency initiatives.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555/111", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555#slide-111", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 106, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-2974563388cb", "evidence": "Eight-page 'Beskrivelse af overlap' section quantifying overlap (-22, -49, -3) and overhead-rate sensitivity.", "position": 18, "objective": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 85, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-08b5faaeae90", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Per-area sizing, 45 one-pagers with provenue, overlap reconciliation.", "position": 4, "confidence": 95, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 138, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-1b0067a923da", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Detailed 45 initiative one-pagers + implementation timeline.", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "docSlug": "ee507dc260892073", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 112, "slideType": "appendix_data", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "The table lists specific efficiency proposals (EF 32, 35, 36, 40, 41, 42) and their interdependencies.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555/112", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555#slide-112", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 106, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-2974563388cb", "evidence": "Eight-page 'Beskrivelse af overlap' section quantifying overlap (-22, -49, -3) and overhead-rate sensitivity.", "position": 18, "objective": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 85, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-08b5faaeae90", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Per-area sizing, 45 one-pagers with provenue, overlap reconciliation.", "position": 4, "confidence": 95, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 138, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-1b0067a923da", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Detailed 45 initiative one-pagers + implementation timeline.", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "docSlug": "ee507dc260892073", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 113, "slideType": "data_table", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "The table shows negative values, indicating cost reductions or savings associated with the identified overlaps.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555/113", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555#slide-113", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 106, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-2974563388cb", "evidence": "Eight-page 'Beskrivelse af overlap' section quantifying overlap (-22, -49, -3) and overhead-rate sensitivity.", "position": 18, "objective": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 85, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-08b5faaeae90", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Per-area sizing, 45 one-pagers with provenue, overlap reconciliation.", "position": 4, "confidence": 95, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 138, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-1b0067a923da", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Detailed 45 initiative one-pagers + implementation timeline.", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "docSlug": "ee507dc260892073", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 114, "slideType": "data_table", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "The table outlines two specific efficiency proposal overlaps (EF 45 and general overhead reductions).", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555/114", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555#slide-114", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 106, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-2974563388cb", "evidence": "Eight-page 'Beskrivelse af overlap' section quantifying overlap (-22, -49, -3) and overhead-rate sensitivity.", "position": 18, "objective": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 85, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-08b5faaeae90", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Per-area sizing, 45 one-pagers with provenue, overlap reconciliation.", "position": 4, "confidence": 95, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 138, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-1b0067a923da", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Detailed 45 initiative one-pagers + implementation timeline.", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "docSlug": "ee507dc260892073", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 115, "slideType": "data_table", "function": "quantify_impact", "notes": "The table outlines four specific initiatives (Logistics, Structure/Concepts, Materiel/IT, and Cross-functional) and their financial impact.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555/115", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555#slide-115", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 106, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-2974563388cb", "evidence": "Eight-page 'Beskrivelse af overlap' section quantifying overlap (-22, -49, -3) and overhead-rate sensitivity.", "position": 18, "objective": "Stress-test gross savings for inter-initiative overlap", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 85, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 115, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-08b5faaeae90", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Per-area sizing, 45 one-pagers with provenue, overlap reconciliation.", "position": 4, "confidence": 95, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 138, "from": 24, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-1b0067a923da", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Detailed 45 initiative one-pagers + implementation timeline.", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157", "docSlug": "049deaeb716a8628", "documentTitle": "FY24 Results and Progress Update Presentation", "authorId": "Barclays", "authorName": "Barclays", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "equity_research", "sourceTypeLabel": "Equity research", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 71, "slideType": "sensitivity_analysis", "function": "quantify_impact", "notes": "The slide uses a table to show financial impact and two line charts to compare interest rate projections over time.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Test resilience of plan to rate moves and credit exposures", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157/71", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157#slide-71", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 75, "from": 71, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019dd95a-08f7-737a-a004-9b99110dc1ae", "evidence": "Rate sensitivity slide, balance sheet provisioning, mortgage and CRE stress", "position": 9, "objective": "Test resilience of plan to rate moves and credit exposures", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 65, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157", "docSlug": "049deaeb716a8628", "documentTitle": "FY24 Results and Progress Update Presentation", "authorId": "Barclays", "authorName": "Barclays", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "equity_research", "sourceTypeLabel": "Equity research", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 72, "slideType": "kpi_dashboard", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "The slide uses stacked bar charts to break down provisions and charges by business segment and balance sheet type.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Test resilience of plan to rate moves and credit exposures", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157/72", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157#slide-72", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 75, "from": 71, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019dd95a-08f7-737a-a004-9b99110dc1ae", "evidence": "Rate sensitivity slide, balance sheet provisioning, mortgage and CRE stress", "position": 9, "objective": "Test resilience of plan to rate moves and credit exposures", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 65, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157", "docSlug": "049deaeb716a8628", "documentTitle": "FY24 Results and Progress Update Presentation", "authorId": "Barclays", "authorName": "Barclays", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "equity_research", "sourceTypeLabel": "Equity research", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 73, "slideType": "kpi_dashboard", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "Data as of Q4 2024. Includes Kensington Mortgages Company balances.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Test resilience of plan to rate moves and credit exposures", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157/73", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157#slide-73", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 75, "from": 71, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019dd95a-08f7-737a-a004-9b99110dc1ae", "evidence": "Rate sensitivity slide, balance sheet provisioning, mortgage and CRE stress", "position": 9, "objective": "Test resilience of plan to rate moves and credit exposures", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 65, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157", "docSlug": "049deaeb716a8628", "documentTitle": "FY24 Results and Progress Update Presentation", "authorId": "Barclays", "authorName": "Barclays", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "equity_research", "sourceTypeLabel": "Equity research", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 74, "slideType": "kpi_dashboard", "function": "summarize", "notes": "Includes footnotes regarding portfolio definitions and FICO score classifications.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Test resilience of plan to rate moves and credit exposures", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157/74", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157#slide-74", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 75, "from": 71, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019dd95a-08f7-737a-a004-9b99110dc1ae", "evidence": "Rate sensitivity slide, balance sheet provisioning, mortgage and CRE stress", "position": 9, "objective": "Test resilience of plan to rate moves and credit exposures", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 65, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157", "docSlug": "049deaeb716a8628", "documentTitle": "FY24 Results and Progress Update Presentation", "authorId": "Barclays", "authorName": "Barclays", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "equity_research", "sourceTypeLabel": "Equity research", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 75, "slideType": "kpi_dashboard", "function": "summarize", "notes": "The slide uses a stacked bar chart to show CRE as a portion of total loans, and a donut chart to show the composition of the CRE portfolio.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Test resilience of plan to rate moves and credit exposures", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157/75", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5b-7c03cd42b157#slide-75", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 75, "from": 71, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019dd95a-08f7-737a-a004-9b99110dc1ae", "evidence": "Rate sensitivity slide, balance sheet provisioning, mortgage and CRE stress", "position": 9, "objective": "Test resilience of plan to rate moves and credit exposures", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 65, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04", "docSlug": "190510b49511442d", "documentTitle": "Lazard LCOE+", "authorId": "RolandBerger", "authorName": "Lazard", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.414, "pageNumber": 9, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_peers", "notes": "The chart uses a bar-style visualization to show cost ranges for different energy sources, with specific annotations for conventional energy sources.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test LCOE robustness across multiple parameters", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04/9", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04#slide-9", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 15, "from": 9, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019de8e9-bb13-71cb-9670-75a55146cdcb", "evidence": "Base-case comparison (p.9) followed by sensitivity to subsidies, fuel, carbon, capital (p.10-13), then firming/competitive comparisons (p.14-15).", "position": 2, "objective": "Stress-test LCOE robustness across multiple parameters", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 70, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 29, "from": 9, "beatId": "019de8e9-b9e8-7495-9d03-f088e78d95b4", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Facts (What)", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "LCOE/LCOS/LCOH benchmarking, sensitivity, cost-component charts", "position": 1, "confidence": 50, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null }, { "to": 29, "from": 7, "beatId": "019de8e9-ba8d-77ee-ae2c-b5633a8eaa8c", "arcName": "The Onion", "arcSlug": "onion", "beatName": "Deeper Layer", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "LCOE, LCOS, LCOH detailed comparisons and sensitivities", "position": 3, "confidence": 35, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04", "docSlug": "190510b49511442d", "documentTitle": "Lazard LCOE+", "authorId": "RolandBerger", "authorName": "Lazard", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.414, "pageNumber": 10, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The chart uses a bar-stacked-like approach to show the range of LCOE values based on different subsidy scenarios.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test LCOE robustness across multiple parameters", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04/10", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04#slide-10", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 15, "from": 9, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019de8e9-bb13-71cb-9670-75a55146cdcb", "evidence": "Base-case comparison (p.9) followed by sensitivity to subsidies, fuel, carbon, capital (p.10-13), then firming/competitive comparisons (p.14-15).", "position": 2, "objective": "Stress-test LCOE robustness across multiple parameters", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 70, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 29, "from": 9, "beatId": "019de8e9-b9e8-7495-9d03-f088e78d95b4", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Facts (What)", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "LCOE/LCOS/LCOH benchmarking, sensitivity, cost-component charts", "position": 1, "confidence": 50, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null }, { "to": 29, "from": 7, "beatId": "019de8e9-ba8d-77ee-ae2c-b5633a8eaa8c", "arcName": "The Onion", "arcSlug": "onion", "beatName": "Deeper Layer", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "LCOE, LCOS, LCOH detailed comparisons and sensitivities", "position": 3, "confidence": 35, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04", "docSlug": "190510b49511442d", "documentTitle": "Lazard LCOE+", "authorId": "RolandBerger", "authorName": "Lazard", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.414, "pageNumber": 11, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The chart uses a bar-chart format to represent cost ranges for different energy sources, distinguishing between renewable and conventional energy.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test LCOE robustness across multiple parameters", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04/11", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04#slide-11", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 15, "from": 9, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019de8e9-bb13-71cb-9670-75a55146cdcb", "evidence": "Base-case comparison (p.9) followed by sensitivity to subsidies, fuel, carbon, capital (p.10-13), then firming/competitive comparisons (p.14-15).", "position": 2, "objective": "Stress-test LCOE robustness across multiple parameters", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 70, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 29, "from": 9, "beatId": "019de8e9-b9e8-7495-9d03-f088e78d95b4", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Facts (What)", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "LCOE/LCOS/LCOH benchmarking, sensitivity, cost-component charts", "position": 1, "confidence": 50, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null }, { "to": 29, "from": 7, "beatId": "019de8e9-ba8d-77ee-ae2c-b5633a8eaa8c", "arcName": "The Onion", "arcSlug": "onion", "beatName": "Deeper Layer", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "LCOE, LCOS, LCOH detailed comparisons and sensitivities", "position": 3, "confidence": 35, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04", "docSlug": "190510b49511442d", "documentTitle": "Lazard LCOE+", "authorId": "RolandBerger", "authorName": "Lazard", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.414, "pageNumber": 12, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The chart uses a grouped bar approach to show baseline LCOE versus LCOE adjusted for carbon pricing.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test LCOE robustness across multiple parameters", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04/12", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04#slide-12", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 15, "from": 9, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019de8e9-bb13-71cb-9670-75a55146cdcb", "evidence": "Base-case comparison (p.9) followed by sensitivity to subsidies, fuel, carbon, capital (p.10-13), then firming/competitive comparisons (p.14-15).", "position": 2, "objective": "Stress-test LCOE robustness across multiple parameters", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 70, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 29, "from": 9, "beatId": "019de8e9-b9e8-7495-9d03-f088e78d95b4", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Facts (What)", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "LCOE/LCOS/LCOH benchmarking, sensitivity, cost-component charts", "position": 1, "confidence": 50, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null }, { "to": 29, "from": 7, "beatId": "019de8e9-ba8d-77ee-ae2c-b5633a8eaa8c", "arcName": "The Onion", "arcSlug": "onion", "beatName": "Deeper Layer", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "LCOE, LCOS, LCOH detailed comparisons and sensitivities", "position": 3, "confidence": 35, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04", "docSlug": "190510b49511442d", "documentTitle": "Lazard LCOE+", "authorId": "RolandBerger", "authorName": "Lazard", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.414, "pageNumber": 13, "slideType": "sensitivity_analysis", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "The chart uses a series of dotted lines to show the trend of LCOE as the cost of capital increases across six data points.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test LCOE robustness across multiple parameters", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04/13", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04#slide-13", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 15, "from": 9, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019de8e9-bb13-71cb-9670-75a55146cdcb", "evidence": "Base-case comparison (p.9) followed by sensitivity to subsidies, fuel, carbon, capital (p.10-13), then firming/competitive comparisons (p.14-15).", "position": 2, "objective": "Stress-test LCOE robustness across multiple parameters", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 70, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 29, "from": 9, "beatId": "019de8e9-b9e8-7495-9d03-f088e78d95b4", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Facts (What)", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "LCOE/LCOS/LCOH benchmarking, sensitivity, cost-component charts", "position": 1, "confidence": 50, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null }, { "to": 29, "from": 7, "beatId": "019de8e9-ba8d-77ee-ae2c-b5633a8eaa8c", "arcName": "The Onion", "arcSlug": "onion", "beatName": "Deeper Layer", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "LCOE, LCOS, LCOH detailed comparisons and sensitivities", "position": 3, "confidence": 35, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04", "docSlug": "190510b49511442d", "documentTitle": "Lazard LCOE+", "authorId": "RolandBerger", "authorName": "Lazard", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.414, "pageNumber": 14, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "Lazard LCOE Analysis Version 17.0, page 14.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test LCOE robustness across multiple parameters", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04/14", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04#slide-14", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 15, "from": 9, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019de8e9-bb13-71cb-9670-75a55146cdcb", "evidence": "Base-case comparison (p.9) followed by sensitivity to subsidies, fuel, carbon, capital (p.10-13), then firming/competitive comparisons (p.14-15).", "position": 2, "objective": "Stress-test LCOE robustness across multiple parameters", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 70, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 29, "from": 9, "beatId": "019de8e9-b9e8-7495-9d03-f088e78d95b4", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Facts (What)", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "LCOE/LCOS/LCOH benchmarking, sensitivity, cost-component charts", "position": 1, "confidence": 50, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null }, { "to": 29, "from": 7, "beatId": "019de8e9-ba8d-77ee-ae2c-b5633a8eaa8c", "arcName": "The Onion", "arcSlug": "onion", "beatName": "Deeper Layer", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "LCOE, LCOS, LCOH detailed comparisons and sensitivities", "position": 3, "confidence": 35, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04", "docSlug": "190510b49511442d", "documentTitle": "Lazard LCOE+", "authorId": "RolandBerger", "authorName": "Lazard", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.414, "pageNumber": 15, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_peers", "notes": "The chart uses a stacked bar approach to show base LCOE, subsidies, and firming costs, with a data table below for ELCC, Capacity Factor, and Resource Penetration.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Stress-test LCOE robustness across multiple parameters", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04/15", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-fb14f4d30a04#slide-15", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 15, "from": 9, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019de8e9-bb13-71cb-9670-75a55146cdcb", "evidence": "Base-case comparison (p.9) followed by sensitivity to subsidies, fuel, carbon, capital (p.10-13), then firming/competitive comparisons (p.14-15).", "position": 2, "objective": "Stress-test LCOE robustness across multiple parameters", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 70, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 29, "from": 9, "beatId": "019de8e9-b9e8-7495-9d03-f088e78d95b4", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Facts (What)", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "LCOE/LCOS/LCOH benchmarking, sensitivity, cost-component charts", "position": 1, "confidence": 50, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null }, { "to": 29, "from": 7, "beatId": "019de8e9-ba8d-77ee-ae2c-b5633a8eaa8c", "arcName": "The Onion", "arcSlug": "onion", "beatName": "Deeper Layer", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "LCOE, LCOS, LCOH detailed comparisons and sensitivities", "position": 3, "confidence": 35, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b636-ed07d758b8cd", "docSlug": "3f41fcbc714f036c", "documentTitle": "Reinforcing the New South Wales Southern Shared Network (HumeLink) PADR – EY Market Modelling", "authorId": "EY", "authorName": "EY", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.779, "pageNumber": 16, "slideType": "sensitivity_analysis", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": null, "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Test robustness of Option 3C benefits to alternative assumptions", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b636-ed07d758b8cd/16", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b636-ed07d758b8cd", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b636-ed07d758b8cd#slide-16", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 16, "from": 16, "name": "Sensitivity Test", "slug": "52-sensitivity-test", "bestFor": "Financial models, forecasting, risk assessment", "matchId": "019de8bb-2d73-726b-9c3a-685abf5ef9ab", "evidence": "Table lists base case plus 8 sensitivities (Snowy delay, retirements, QNI Stage 2, 50% POE, demand mgmt, etc.) with benefit deltas.", "position": 3, "objective": "Test robustness of Option 3C benefits to alternative assumptions", "structure": "The Base Case -> Assumption A Varies -> Assumption B Varies -> Robustness of Conclusion", "confidence": 85, "description": "Show how conclusions change (or don't) when key assumptions vary" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 16, "from": 16, "beatId": "019de8bb-2c82-760f-b76d-b23ab7cbb9b9", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Impact & Next Steps", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "Sensitivities table tests robustness of Option 3C benefits across alternative assumptions.", "position": 5, "confidence": 65, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null }, { "to": 16, "from": 16, "beatId": "019de8bb-2d0c-72b5-96a0-b944d102fedd", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "Sensitivities frame robustness, but no explicit recommendation/CTA.", "position": 3, "confidence": 50, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true } ] }