FINANCIAL · KPI · LAGGING

Provision expense vs budgetCR-05

65.0%✕ Off target◇MANUAL

ACTUAL VS PLAN

BUDGET CONSUMED VS PRO-RATA

Is the FY provision plan being spent, or deferred?

How much of this is measured: Lower is not automatically better here. Under-spending a provision budget while NPL is 24.5% audited may mean under-provisioning, not cost control — which is why CR-05 is paired with guard CR-09 and why coverage at 61.3% is flagged not IFRS-9 compliant.

VARIANCE TO PLAN — computed in-platform, not in Excel

DEFINITION

Formula: actual ÷ budgeted provision
Unit / direction: pct · higher better
Source system: T24 → DWH + Finance
Refresh: daily_t1
Target: ≤ 100% FY
Target status: From an ACF document
Baseline in context/: H1-2026 = 64% of FY budget

OWNERSHIP — two roles, two people (R-G-02)

Metric owner — owns the target and the result

Head of Credit Risk & Portfolio Management

Data owner — owns the source system and pipeline

IT System Planning

Both proposed by Ikigai and awaiting ACF confirmation (DEC-02).

GUARD METRIC — the check on this number (R-G-06)

Gross NPL before write-off + write-off volume

CR-09

28.4

+24.4 vs target 4

MANUALT24 → DWH⏱ T+1

Head of Credit Risk & Portfolio Management·IT System Planning

A headline KPI is resolved with its guard, so the pairing cannot be forgotten by the UI.

COMMENTARY — why the number is what it is

No commentary recorded for this metric. A red tile with no explanation is the failure mode the current monthly pack already has.

Commentary is attached to the metric and period, not to a slide. It survives the month — which is what makes a variance reviewable at the next meeting instead of re-argued. Prototype — read-only fixtures; at fullstack this is the COMMENT table with author identity from AD.