Your business unit, brought together in one decision document.
A technical assessment examines one system. The Executive Report brings the whole business unit into view, including its subunits: a consolidated score with a documented calculation, a decision matrix for each area and assessments that state their confidence level. Ready to print and share.
DERIVED FROM THE ASSESSMENTS YOU ALREADY HAVE — NO NEW SCAN
The 10 sections
Each section answers a decision-maker's question — with the source declared and evidence linked to the originating assessments.
Overview by business area
Each subunit has its own score, coverage and trend, with its weakest dimension identified.
Assessment coverage per repository
A matrix showing what has been assessed and what still needs attention. Empty cells make coverage gaps visible.
Scores per technical dimension
Each row explains its aggregation rule; security is assessed against the most severe finding.
Diagnosis: facts, interpretation and recommendations
Three separate layers — measured fact, interpretation and recommendation — with a/b/c paths, including "do not act" with a date.
Contribution concentration
Contribution history by area and signs of dependencies between teams, without naming individuals in the document.
Unit separation and vendor dependency
Separation points ready × still coupled; dependency per vendor with measured calls.
Code complexity and life cycle
Complexity health, runtimes at end of support and known dependency vulnerabilities.
Verdict: what to do with each area
The demand × condition matrix recommends whether to maintain, invest, contain or modernize, supported by evidence and specific dates that make delay a concern.
Cross-analysis between assessments + external sources
Convergences between assessments and dated external sources — legislation, news, market — plus the company registry record.
Who decides
Responsible roles, timelines and expected outcomes grounded in the assessment and subject to validation.
Evidence to support your decision
Throughout the document, deterministic rules produce the scores. The narrative explains the findings, and you make the decision.
Measured and citable — every number links to the originating assessment, section and file.
The interpretation of the facts, always separate from them and marked as interpretation.
Possible paths with consequences — including the path of not acting, with a date.
An assessment appears only when there is sufficient supporting evidence. Otherwise, the document explains why it was withheld and which additional assessment could support it.
Automated review blocks assessments that cite figures missing from the report or claim certainty where the evidence is insufficient. Only assessments that pass these checks are published.
The consequences of waiting are tied to identifiable dates or trends, such as an end-of-support deadline. Financial figures are never invented.
The document declares the provenance of every extraction: which assessment, which version, from when.
The report explains these limits and the additional sources that could extend the assessment.
Code in its business context
The report consults external sources — regulations, news and market developments — and relates them to findings in the code. Those connections can inform a recommendation; they do not change technical scores.
In one business unit, the analysis connected an upcoming law found in an external source with a critical code finding in the area affected by that law.
The recommendation named where to start the adjustments: it was not just technical debt — it was the company's business model that stood exposed if nothing was done before the law took effect.
Does not touch scores
This kind of finding changes no number in the report — the scores keep coming only from the deterministic scale over the code. It exists to guide decisions, not to grade.
Only appears with a degree of certainty
A connection between an external source and a code finding is published only when the evidence supports the relationship at the required confidence level. Speculative connections are excluded.
With source and date
Every external fact enters citing its source and date — verifiable like everything else in the document, and clearly separated from what was measured in the code.
Current indicators.
Interpretation when you need it.
Indicators and interpretive analysis follow different update cycles. The report makes the difference visible.
Numbers always available
The index, matrices, coverage and area indicators are calculated from existing assessments and update when those assessments change.
Verdict generated when you ask
The interpretive narrative — diagnosis, assessments and cross-analysis — is generated on demand, always over that moment's set of assessments.
Staleness declared
If the assessments change after the verdict, the document says there is new data — it never pretends the narrative kept up.
Feedback from a corporate client led to published improvements addressing 8 of the 9 points raised.
EXTERNAL CRITIQUE RECEIVED AND ANSWERED IN AUGUST 2026 — EVOLVING UNDER SCRUTINY IS PART OF THE METHOD
See your business unit in this format.
Tell us how many systems the unit has and what you need to decide. We build the demo on your context.