Grocer-Affiliated Debit Program
Operating domain: Payments · Capability: Affiliated debit / tender migration and program economics
- Value at Issue
- Approved
- Confidence-Adjusted Value Opportunity
- Approved
- Projected Net First-Year Benefit
- Projected
- Verified Net Value Retained
- Finance-Verified
- Executive owner
- M. Chen (simulated)
- Working owner
- J. Whitcombe — Value Case Lead (simulated)
- Confidence
- High
- Data completeness
- 96%
- Next required decision
- Review fee statement
- Decision owner · required by
- D. Alvarez (simulated) · Aug 15, 2027
- Reporting period
- Calendar year · Q2 2027
- Scenario
- Approved base case
- Approved baseline
- Payments Value Case Template v3 · version 7
- Data as of
- Jul 18, 2027
What is happening in the grocer's current payment flow, where are the economic gaps, and what causes them?
What do we know?
The observed operating gaps, the workflows they occur in and the loss areas they create for this Value Case.
Why does it matter financially?
Avoidable Value Loss is the ceiling of everything that can later be claimed as recoverable. Nothing downstream can exceed what is evidenced here.
What must happen next?
Accept the diagnosis and the primary root cause so quantification can begin from an agreed cause.
Current condition
What is factually true about the grocer's payment flow today, before any program is proposed.
- ObservedCustomers tender third-party credit and debit cards across POS and ecommerce.
- ObservedThe grocer pays acceptance costs under its current merchant, acquirer and processor arrangements.
- ObservedThe grocer receives merchant sale proceeds and retail margin. It does not receive issuer or card-program economics from third-party card products.
- Not establishedNo observed result exists for an affiliated debit program, because no such program has been deployed.
Observed acceptance cost
The observed cost of accepting third-party tenders. None of this total is claimed as avoidable at this stage.
Gap types
These four gap types are reported separately. They are different in kind and are never added together into a single loss total.
Potentially avoidable own-channel cost
Only the addressable cost difference on eligible transactions that could migrate to the affiliated debit product. It is not the full acceptance cost.
Foregone program economics
Modelled contractual value that could become available from eligible customer spending outside the grocer if the proposed product is used.
Data or measurement gap
Missing identity, tender, channel, fee, settlement or accounting detail that prevents reliable quantification. It is a confidence gap, not a dollar gap.
Future separate optimization
Processor contract, routing and acceptance-stack changes that are not required by this debit program and are excluded from it.
These amounts are not additive. Avoidable own-channel cost and foregone program economics are quantified in two separate ledgers in stage 2 and are only combined as Gross Program Value after overlap controls are applied.
Evidence boundaries
What is not yet established. Unknown detail is recorded as unknown, never as zero.
- Itemised processor fee detail for POS debitFee-component classification for $2.96M of observed costMaterialControllerJun 12, 2027
- POS gateway fee statementPOS credit and debit component splitMaterialDirector, PaymentsJun 12, 2027
- Identity match uplift plan29% of card transactions cannot be attributed to a customerBlockingHead of DataJun 30, 2027
Decision Brief
Gate: Do we accept the current-state payment flow, addressable gaps, primary causes and evidence boundaries as the basis for quantification?Do we accept the current-state payment flow, addressable gaps, primary causes and evidence boundaries as the basis for quantification?
- Owner
- J. Whitcombe — Value Case Lead (simulated)
- Due by
- Aug 15, 2027
- Gate action
- Review fee statement
- Open provider-credit dispute
- Cross-case overlap review pending finance