Borrow or move
permitted payments?

The operating calendar pays on stated due dates, or earlier to capture available discounts, and selects the least-cost permitted borrowing. It is a designed comparison policy, not an observed customer process. The AGX coordinated plan also chooses when to pay within each supplier’s allowed dates.

Payments move; no liability disappears and no extra discount is assumed. The calculation assigns no invented value to supplier relationships or avoided disruption. The permitted dates must reflect management’s contracts and supplier priorities.

Cash headroom means closing cash above the required $10 million minimum. It is separate from savings. The calculation minimizes interest less discounts; it does not maximize cash protection. Other equally low-cost schedules may retain different amounts of cash.

Four business conditions compare the operating calendar with coordinated payment timing. A fifth check fixes every payment and funding choice to the reference and must reproduce it exactly. There are twelve evaluated plans. The narrower-supplier-terms case was corrected and rerun with fresh approval on 24 October; the other cases retain their 20 October calculations. Financial facts and the planning forecast are unchanged.

Amounts below are US dollars. Cash headroom is measured against the same $10 million weekly minimum, using each case’s approved forecast.

Both policies capture $113,221.50 of discounts in the normal, delayed-collection and restricted-cash cases. With narrower supplier terms, both capture $80,872.50. All reported cost differences are interest. These are alternative conditions, not benefits to add together or annualize.

Before calculation, the reviewer approves the exact inputs, permitted choices and financial engine version. Changing the approved decision requires fresh approval. Approval to calculate does not authorize payments or borrowing.

Treasury reviews cash and funding, Accounts Payable confirms the supplier terms, and Controllership checks the records. The calculation informs their decision; it moves no money.

The latest forecast separates expected collections from a more conservative planning forecast. The comparison above uses the planning forecast. Both are estimates based on the synthetic company’s payment history.

In a subsequent test of 1,000 simulated collection paths for the normal-case schedules, the operating calendar fell below the cash minimum in 24 paths. The selected AGX schedule did not breach it in those paths. These counts describe the test—not real-world probabilities.

Forecast risk remains material. In the 1,000-path test, planning receipts ran as much as $10.75 million ahead of simulated receipts at a weekly cutoff. More conservative planning is not a guarantee of cash availability. See the full forecast measures and their limits.

A separate test in AGX’s decision workspace confirmed that a detected shortfall is shown for review before the result can be reused or the calculation repeated. Automatic recalculation pauses. Reviewing the shortfall does not remove the separate financial approval requirement.

The study tests a payment and funding comparison for a fictional distributor. Supplier permissions, cash requirements and financing terms are assumptions. The accounting and simulated-bank records share the same underlying movements; they are not independent confirmation from a real bank.

The download retains the financial submissions, supporting records, all reported forecast checks and unfavorable outcomes. Its notes distinguish the freshly approved supplier-terms correction from the retained cases. The prior unqualified submission remains in the historical evidence; its financial records have not been rewritten. It excludes proprietary source code, internal service addresses and personal account data. Evidence scope and version details explain what readers can check.

The demonstration establishes a controlled comparison under disclosed assumptions. It does not establish achieved customer returns, independently measured forecast accuracy or production readiness. Verification took place in a development environment using live connections to test systems. No payments or borrowing were executed.

Our lead assurance offer is covenant verification. Optional planning builds on reviewed constraints, with its own forecast, permissions and approval. The combined covenant example shows how a covenant can change the preferred plan. ABL is complementary and is not connected to planning. The studies use different fictional companies; their benefits cannot be combined.