Validate the evidence
Check functionality, output completeness and subsidy records before interpreting performance.
Agriculture & public sector
Turning programme data into clearer funding priorities
A performance framework that connects unit records, evidence quality and subsidy-allocation decisions.
86,674Unit records analysed
88.0%Units recorded functional
73.35%Functional units output-complete
The decision behind the data.
Which activity models should be validated for selective expansion, redesigned or reviewed for recovery before further support?
An anonymised agricultural development programme
Separate operational status from evidence quality
We checked functionality and output coverage, defined four performance lenses and screened activity types using volume and completeness gates. Reported profit was compared with recorded subsidy to prioritise further review.
55,971 functional, outputs complete20,337 functional, outputs incomplete10,366 non-functional
What the analysis showed.
Thirty-two activity types met the screen. Eight higher-ratio types represented 0.9% of recorded subsidy and 13.3% of reported profit; eight lower-ratio types represented 33.9% and 12.3%. Three activity types accounted for 69.9% of lower-group subsidy.
Common scale: 0–40% of each recorded total. Screen: at least 100 functional units and 70% output-complete. Upper and lower quartiles of activity-level reported profit/subsidy ratios define the groups.
69.9% of lower-group subsidy sits in three activity types
A focused starting point for a cost and delivery review, rather than an automatic funding cut.
A balanced performance lens
Profit / 30%Employment / 20%Profit per subsidy / 30%Revenue per subsidy / 20%
Proposed analytical weights, not approved policy. Employment is measured in person-days. Ratios are descriptive and do not establish causal impact.
A clear route to the next decision.
Expand selectively
Test stronger reported models against demand, delivery capacity and comparable cohorts.
Redesign delivery
Review the cost structures and delivery constraints of the lower-ratio group.
Review inactive units
Investigate 10,366 non-functional records and assess appropriate next steps case by case.
What the work delivered.
- Performance framework
- Four explicit lenses, functionality and evidence gates, with interpretation limits.
- Activity segmentation
- A reproducible screen of 32 activity types, concentration checks and review groups.
- Allocation-review proposal
- A structured route from validation to selective expansion, redesign or inactive-unit review.
Analysis and solution framework developed. Pilot shortlists and revalidation plans are proposed outputs; implementation and realised benefits are not established.
Read the complete case study PDF