Book
Payables
The validity gap · one questionnaire
Three figures size the recognition-validity cost your business carries, test whether your book fits, and preview the year-end proof — in a single flow. Change the figures once; the estimate, the gate verdict, and the year-end preview all move with them.
Step 1 · Estimate
A first-touch sizing of the part of your validity gap Axiom actually touches — the enforcement-eligible zone — and the recognition-integrity coverage it buys. The full carried gap is shown as context, never as the headline.
Conservative coefficients at the low end of the evidence range. Lines tagged modeled are not visible in filed accounts (they are estimated); lines tagged observed have a booked footprint. The addressable figure is scaled by your contract-governed share and an enforceability haircut that firms at ingestion, so it is a band, not a point.
Price = fixed infrastructure fee per agreement + an agreement-value-band premium. The premium is insurance framing — it buys coverage, decoupled from the gap. No quoted total, no capture rate, no prevented-value term. Your figure is prepared in a working session.
Step 2 · Qualify · worst across three layers
Three stacked layers — structural fit, enforceability, materiality. The verdict is the worst result across all three, provisional at first touch and firming at ingestion, and it is binding on sales operations.
A revenue floor (≥ ₹5 Cr) and a four-band rule on the share of procurement under written agreements — a recognition layer can only enforce validity where an agreement governs the transaction.
| Governed share | v1 verdict | Routing |
|---|---|---|
| < 40% | Reject v1 | Architectural mismatch — routed to an Axiom-led land-and-expand ramp that owns the relationship toward v1. Not an external referral. |
| 40–50% | Reject · referral | The referral is internal — into the Axiom-led ramp. The prospect is not handed away. |
| 50–80% | Accept v1 | In scope. 50–60% carries a sub-mature digitisation-lift caveat; 60–80% is a clean accept. |
| > 80% | Accept · priority | Highly governed surface — priority into the v1 funnel. |
Contract-governed is not the same as Axiom-enforceable — a transaction is enforceable only where an invariant-bearing agreement is bound to it. So the governed share takes a maturity-correlated, conservative haircut. Because it firms only at ingestion, it is shown as a band, not a point.
Two tracks — a prospect qualifies on either, a hard reject only if it fails both.
Economic addressable ≥ the materiality threshold (≈ ₹20–25 L).
Price-viability and material integrity coverage — economic addressable not required. For clean, high-agreement-count books whose value is coverage.
Step 3 · Measure · the year-end proof
After a year, your report returns five separate numbers — graded by certainty, never summed. The two certain lines show from your first free quarter; the rest firm over the year. The illustrative shape for the book you entered, at conservative efficacy:
A process fact is a recorded count and value of what the layer actually did — a measured number, never a modelled or counterfactual savings claim. Split by mechanism: pre-payment Blocked (hard) and post-payment Surfaced → Recovered (soft, because the recovery is your action).
The integrity axis answers a different question from prevention — not “what did the layer stop?” but “how trustworthy is the book?” Held apart from prevented and never summed with it: it is the value the premium buys, and the leg that carries clean and receivables-led books.
Coordination and exception work the layer takes off existing roles. Quantifiable on a self-reported baseline, so it stays inferred — never a hard number, never summed with prevented, and never a price input.
Year-end reconciliationAt year-end your filed accounts are reconciled against the book Axiom governed. The difference is the recognition-validity cost still outside the agreements we cover — your roadmap to expand. The booked part of it is now observable; only the unbooked leakage stays an estimate.
The five numbers answer different questions and add to nothing if combined. Economic prevention is “what did the layer stop?”; integrity is “how trustworthy is the book?”. Surfaced is our certain detection; recovered is your action on it — reported apart so neither over-claims the other.
For clean and receivables-led books, lead with the integrity axis and the saved line, not the structurally-soft economic prevented.
After the questionnaire
The bands above are a starting point, not a quote. They firm to points once your agreements are ingested and the enforceable share is measured. When you are ready, the conversation is a working session — we map this to your actual agreements, then size, qualify, and measure it live.