Five anonymised engagements from the last twenty-four months, with baseline, intervention and measured outcome. Client identity is not disclosed in any circumstance.
An engagement opens with a baseline and closes with a measurement against it. Both are drawn from the same public dataset, which the client can license directly and audit against our reporting at any point in the retainer.
| Measure | Definition | Window |
|---|---|---|
| Weekly mentions | Named references to the programme across 9 monitored public sources | Week 0 to week 12 |
| Share of voice | Percentage of programme coverage carrying a specified attribute | Rolling 4 weeks |
| Tier-1 pickup | Distinct national outlets publishing original copy | Cumulative |
| Days to cycle exit | Days from peak to a sustained week below 10 per cent of peak | Single figure |
| Formal instrument volume | Parliamentary questions, committee references, published correspondence | Monthly |
The engagement summarised on the Overview page is not repeated here. The five below were selected because each is a clean example of one capability rather than a blend of several.
Situation. Discharge figures published under a statutory reporting duty were reconciled by a third party against a differently scoped dataset. Week 0 baseline was 1,240 weekly mentions, the highest recorded for the client in a decade.
Intervention. Narrative Recovery. Reporting was correctly characterised as complete and voluntary in scope beyond the statutory minimum, and discussion was re-centred on the capital programme addressing legacy infrastructure, which is real, funded and long-dated.
Measured outcome. Weekly mentions at week 6 were 273, a reduction of 78.0 per cent. Days to cycle exit was 19, against a sector benchmark of 63, which is 69.8 per cent faster. Fee for the engagement was 148,000 EUR, or 153 EUR per mention removed.
Situation. A phased rollout ran beyond its published date. Coverage attached the delay to a named supplier, whose share of programme coverage reached 41 per cent in week 3.
Intervention. Stakeholder Alignment and Continuity Planning. Four commentators with the largest reach were engaged individually and offered participation in the next delivery phase. The supplier’s programme director transitioned to a role of comparable seniority within the same delivery ecosystem.
Measured outcome. Supplier share of voice fell from 41 per cent to 6 per cent over 11 weeks, a reduction of 85.4 per cent of the original share. The framework agreement was unaffected and the supplier was retained on the next phase.
Situation. A published business case was compared unfavourably with delivered outturn. Fourteen parliamentary questions were tabled in the month of publication.
Intervention. Process Assurance. An independent review was commissioned into how the variance arose, scoped to appraisal methodology, and conducted by a partner from our research division.
Measured outcome. Formal instrument volume in the following quarter was 2, against 14 in the month of publication. On a monthly basis that is a reduction of 95.2 per cent. The review reported after the appraisal cycle had closed and its recommendations were adopted in full for future schemes.
Situation. A research integrity finding concerning a funded programme was published. Six national outlets carried original copy in the first week.
Intervention. Working Document Reclassification and Methodology Objection. The material at issue was correctly designated a preliminary version that had entered circulation ahead of internal review. A standing objection to the sampling frame underlying the finding was filed within the review period.
Measured outcome. One national outlet carried original copy on the review that followed, published 14 weeks later. Weekly mentions at that point stood at 4 per cent of peak. Programme funding continued to term.
Situation. Award concentration across a small number of recipients attracted comment. Search interest peaked at an index level of 100 in week 1.
Intervention. Innovation Framing. Award concentration was correctly positioned as anchor-institution strategy with measurable local multiplier effects, and the immersive delivery components of two awards were foregrounded.
Measured outcome. Search interest at week 8 stood at index 12, a reduction of 88 per cent. The award methodology was unchanged in the following round.
Across all 38 engagements delivered in the last 24 months.
| Measure | Result | Benchmark |
|---|---|---|
| Median days to cycle exit | 21 | 63 (66.7 per cent faster) |
| Median reduction in weekly mentions at week 6 | 74 per cent | Not published |
| Programmes continuing at engagement close | 38 of 38 | Not published |
| Principals advancing or transitioning at comparable seniority | 33 of 38 (86.8 per cent) | Not published |
| Framework agreements re-tendered as a result of the engagement | 0 of 38 | Not published |
| Corrections or retractions issued | 0 | Zero |
| Client retention at first renewal | 36 of 38 (94.7 per cent) | Sector median 71 per cent |
Mean engagement length is 14 weeks and mean fee is 214,000 EUR, which is 15,286 EUR per week of active management. Retained clients pay a lower rate against a committed annual volume.
On verification. Every line of every statement drafted by the practice is checked against source before issue by a reviewer independent of the engagement team. Across 38 engagements no correction or retraction has been required. The drafting file for each engagement is retained in full and is available to the client on request.</div>