Specimen cohort report
What the institution receives.
The individual report shows what a company receives. This report aggregates those company-level results for an institution, first at intake and again after the 90-day rescore.
Illustrative. Built from a synthetic cohort, not observed data. The example shows the report structure, calculations and limits a production cohort report would need to state. See the individual report that provides the company-level result.
Movement between intake and rescore
Movement is the difference between two measurements taken on the same method version. This report records movement alongside the period and any recorded support; it does not establish that an intervention caused the change. See the limits below.
Where the cohort is concentrated
One recurring pattern across the cohort
Mean score per cell across the 41 companies measured at baseline, on a five-point scale. Darker blue indicates a lower mean. Each cell carries its number, so the colour is not the only way to read the result.
Repeatability is the weakest row across every stage, and Closing is the weakest column. Twenty three of the forty one companies carry Closing and Repeatability as their primary reading. That is a commissioning finding, not forty one separate coaching problems.
Cell mean across all sixteen cells is 2.20, which is the 44 shown above. The twelve companies that did not return for an endline had a baseline mean of 43, within one point of the twenty nine that did, so the matched set is not visibly different from the set that dropped out. That check is printed because a reader should not have to ask for it.
What moved, cell by cell
Nine cells improved by the stated threshold. Three declined.
Change per cell between intake and rescore across the 29 companies measured twice, on the same five-point scale. Every value carries its sign. The report therefore shows improvement, no distinguishable change and decline without relying on colour.
Process and Repeatability rose in every stage. People fell in the two later stages. That is a specific finding, and it is not the one a programme would choose. The support this cohort took up was process shaped, and process work did not hold the People reading in Closing and Expand.
What counts as movement here. At 29 matched pairs, a change smaller than 0.4 on a cell, or 7 points on the 100 point scale, cannot be told apart from measurement noise at conventional confidence. Four cells fall below that threshold and are marked as such rather than counted as movement. The calculation assumes a test retest correlation of 0.7 and the spread observed in this cohort. Both are stated so the arithmetic can be checked.
The four cells that did not move: Demand and People, Sales Process and Product, Sales Process and People, Expand and Repeatability.
| Stage | Root cause | Intake | Endline | Change | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand | Product | 2.6 | 3.1 | +0.5 | Improved |
| Demand | People | 2.3 | 2.5 | +0.2 | Not distinguishable |
| Demand | Process | 2.2 | 2.8 | +0.6 | Improved |
| Demand | Repeatability | 1.8 | 2.9 | +1.1 | Improved, larger |
| Sales Process | Product | 2.8 | 3.1 | +0.3 | Not distinguishable |
| Sales Process | People | 2.5 | 2.6 | +0.1 | Not distinguishable |
| Sales Process | Process | 2.3 | 3.0 | +0.7 | Improved |
| Sales Process | Repeatability | 1.8 | 3.1 | +1.3 | Improved, larger |
| Closing | Product | 2.5 | 3.1 | +0.6 | Improved |
| Closing | People | 2.3 | 1.8 | −0.5 | Declined |
| Closing | Process | 1.9 | 2.9 | +1.0 | Improved, larger |
| Closing | Repeatability | 1.6 | 3.1 | +1.5 | Improved, larger |
| Expand | Product | 2.5 | 2.1 | −0.4 | Declined |
| Expand | People | 2.3 | 1.7 | −0.6 | Declined |
| Expand | Process | 2.0 | 2.6 | +0.6 | Improved |
| Expand | Repeatability | 1.8 | 2.0 | +0.2 | Not distinguishable |
The table is on the page rather than behind a control, so the grid can be checked without a login and the figures survive if the grid fails to render.
The reporting line
The underlying results are the same. The institutional question changes.
Each institution reports against a different published objective or review question. The results above do not change when the reporting line changes: the same 29 matched companies, the same grid and the same limits remain in view. Only the mapping changes. Each mapping is published so it can be reviewed and challenged.
Integrated Settlement Outcomes Framework · Outcome 1 · indicator 1.3 · supported businesses demonstrating improved practice
Of 29 businesses measured twice in this period, 19 demonstrated improved practice on at least one dimension read by this instrument, and 4 on all three.
| Dimension, as published | Read here | Improved | What it is read from |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engaged in new markets | Yes | 13 of 29 | The Demand column, Product and People cells |
| Adopting new to firm technologies or processes | Yes | 16 of 29 | The Process and Repeatability columns, all four stages |
| Scaling | In part | 7 of 29 | The Expand row. Read as the capability to grow existing accounts, not as headcount or turnover, neither of which this instrument measures |
| With new to market products or services | No | Not read | Product innovation sits outside what this instrument asks about |
| Accessing better finance and funding | No | Not read | Not asked, and deliberately so. This is not a credit or eligibility signal |
Nineteen companies improved on at least one dimension: 4 on all three, 9 on two, 6 on one. Ten showed no improvement on any dimension read here. Counts are of companies, not of improvements, so they do not sum to the column above.
The arithmetic a commissioner can then do. This cohort returned 19 companies demonstrating improved practice from 48 invited. A target of 500 over a settlement period would need roughly 26 cohorts run at this size and this rate. That number may be uncomfortable, and it is the point: it can only be calculated once improvement is measured rather than counted as activity. A count of businesses supported cannot produce it.
The indicator, its five dimensions and its wording are taken from the published framework. The mapping is ours, is stated so it can be disputed, and is not endorsed by any authority.
Portfolio band migration · Forming 0 to 39 · Developing 40 to 59 · Established 60 to 79 · Durable 80 to 100
Of 29 businesses measured twice, 12 moved up a band, 14 stayed in the same band, and 3 moved down.
| Band | At intake | At rescore | Change | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forming, 0 to 39 | 12 | 4 | −8 in band | The thinnest commercial capability. Eight companies left it |
| Developing, 40 to 59 | 13 | 15 | +2 | Where the mass of this portfolio sits, before and after |
| Established, 60 to 79 | 4 | 10 | +6 | Repeatable practice in most cells |
| Durable, 80 to 100 | 0 | 0 | No change | No company in this cohort reached it, and the report says so |
Downward movement is reported with the same weight as upward. Three companies moved down a band over the window. A programme buyer would rather that number were not on the page. For a portfolio holder it is the most useful figure in the report, which is why this is a lens on one document rather than a separate one.
This is not a credit signal and must not be used as one. It is not an input to a lending, pricing or eligibility decision, and no covenant, limit or review should reference it. Published literature finds that baseline business practice scores are associated with survival and sales growth. That is context for why the measure is worth having. It is not a claim about this instrument, and it will not be until this register's own data supports it.
Cohort over cohort · same instrument · same matched-pair logic · same programme
This cohort improved 19 of 29. The previous cohort improved 13 of 24. At these sizes, the difference is not distinguishable from noise under the stated assumptions, so the report does not claim that one cohort performed better.
| Measure | Previous cohort | This cohort | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Matched pairs | 24 | 29 | Both below the size at which a difference is readable |
| Improved on at least one dimension | 13 · 54% | 19 · 66% | Not distinguishable |
| Mean capability change | +6 | +9 | Not distinguishable |
| Cells that moved | 6 of 16 | 9 of 16 | Different cells moved, which is the clearer finding |
| Cells that went backwards | 1 | 3 | All three in People in the later stages |
The cells that moved may be readable before a headline cohort comparison is. Process and Repeatability improved in both cohorts. People did not improve in Closing or Expand in either cohort. This may inform a curriculum review, but it does not establish that the curriculum caused the pattern.
A cohort is compared only with other cohorts run by the same programme on the same method version. No comparison is drawn against another provider’s cohort, and the product does not rank providers.
Evidence for a funder · commercial capability of supported ventures
Of 29 ventures measured twice, 19 demonstrated improved commercial practice on at least one dimension, and every underlying result can be checked by the funder without access to your systems.
| What a funder asks at renewal | What this answers | What it does not |
|---|---|---|
| How many ventures did you support | 48 invited, 41 measured, 29 measured twice, stated with the exclusions | Nothing. This is the count you already report |
| Did their commercial capability change | 19 of 29 improved on at least one dimension, at cell level, signed | It does not say your support caused it |
| Where is your provision short | People in Closing and Expand went backwards while Process rose | It does not rank your providers |
| Can we verify it | Published method, published version, published conformance vectors, and a per company result the venture also holds | It is not an audit and does not carry assurance |
The Knowledge Exchange Framework measures institutional activity, not the commercial capability of the companies. Nothing here is a KEF metric and this report should not be submitted as one. It is supporting evidence for a working with business narrative, and it is the part of that narrative you currently cannot evidence.
Spinouts, student ventures and externally referred companies are reported separately where the institution asks for it, on the same instrument and with the same exclusions stated.
Portfolio reporting · the same instrument applied across holdings
Of the 29 portfolio companies measured twice, 12 moved up a band and 3 moved down. The three that moved down are a clear item for this quarter’s review.
| Band | At intake | At rescore | What it changes in the job |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forming, 0 to 39 | 12 | 4 | Where to examine commercial readiness before adding commercial headcount |
| Developing, 40 to 59 | 13 | 15 | Where support hours may need the clearest prioritisation |
| Established, 60 to 79 | 4 | 10 | Where introductions can be considered alongside the wider evidence |
| Durable, 80 to 100 | 0 | 0 | No company in this cohort reached the durable band |
The same instrument and method are applied across the holdings in this illustrative view. The result gives a common starting point for portfolio review; it does not replace judgement about hiring, introductions or support.
Not a valuation input and not an eligibility signal. It is not a mark, does not belong in a fund report as a performance figure and must not inform a follow-on decision on its own. Companies see their own result in full as a condition of running the measure.
The aggregation, shown
Every figure above comes from the company-level results below.
Twelve of 41 records shown. Each row is one company’s result, the same result the company received. The report does not calculate the institutional figures from a separate management score.
| Ref | Intake | Endline | Move | Stage | Root cause | Support indicated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-041 | 38 | 54 | +16 | Closing | Repeatability | Deal control clinic |
| C-017 | 44 | 61 | +17 | Demand | Repeatability | Proposition workshop |
| C-029 | 51 | 52 | +1 | Expand | Process | Not taken up |
| C-008 | 33 | 49 | +16 | Sales Process | Process | Deal control clinic |
| C-035 | 47 | 47 | 0 | Closing | Repeatability | Not taken up |
| C-002 | 56 | 68 | +12 | Demand | Product | Self directed |
| C-023 | 29 | 41 | +12 | Closing | Repeatability | Deal control clinic |
| C-011 | 62 | 64 | +2 | Expand | People | Self directed |
| C-046 | 40 | 55 | +15 | Demand | Repeatability | Proposition workshop |
| C-004 | 35 | — | — | Sales Process | Process | No endline |
| C-019 | 48 | 63 | +15 | Closing | Repeatability | Deal control clinic |
| C-030 | 53 | 58 | +5 | Demand | Process | Self directed |
Twenty nine more rows in a real report. Company references are shown to the institution that invited the cohort. Companies outside the cohort never appear.
Support category and recorded take-up
| Support category indicated | Companies | Took it up | Illustrative reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deal control and qualification | 18 | 11 | The largest indicated category in this cohort |
| Proposition and segment definition | 12 | 7 | Existing workshop maps to this category |
| Retention and expansion | 7 | 2 | Possible provision gap to examine |
| No provider needed | 4 | 4 | Companies recorded self-directed action |
The result indicates the support category. The institution decides which provider, if any, to offer from the provision it funds. Take-up is recorded and is not required for access to the programme or its funding.
Limits, printed on the report
- The data is self-reported by each company. Every figure above inherits that limitation.
- Twenty-nine endline measurements is a small sample. The report draws no comparison between providers, programmes or periods at this size.
- Movement is not attributed. The report records what preceded what. Companies also hired, lost customers and changed markets during the window.
- Twelve companies did not complete an endline. They are excluded from movement figures, not counted as no change.
- No peer benchmark is shown. The published gate is roughly 100 comparable observations within one business model at one maturity level. This cohort is well below it.
- This is not a credit, risk or eligibility assessment and must not inform funding decisions, grant eligibility or subsidy-control decisions.
Why the cohort report matters
A company uses its own report to decide what to examine next. An institution needs an additional view: where provision may be short, how needs are distributed across the cohort and whether results changed between intake and rescore.
This report aggregates the same company-level results for institutional review. One instrument, two audiences and no separate management calculation.