The operating model
The homepage shows the shape of an Operating Position. This is the whole of one: every fact XOPS holds about a single person, the system authoritative for each, what contradicts it, and what policy does next. Then what that makes possible, starting with a day one that every system reported as a success.
The full Position
This is the whole of Sarah Chen's Position rather than a summary of it: every fact XOPS holds, the system genuinely authoritative for each one, how current it is, what contradicts it, and what policy does about that next.
Select any fact to see the systems that contributed to it
Position · Employee
Sarah Chen
Acme North America Marketing Cost center 1842
Reconciled 14 seconds ago
Resolved on 9 of 10 facts · 1 held
| Fact | Current value | Authoritative source | Verified | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employment | FTE, Marketing, effective 15 Sep | Workday | 14s | |
|
Contributing evidence Workday · authoritative Worker type FTE, effective 2026-09-15 Coupa · contradicts Consulting engagement 8841 cancelled 2026-09-12 ServiceNow · work record Onboarding request RITM0084412, open How it resolves: Employment facts resolve to the HRIS. A cancelled purchase order is evidence about a contract, not about whether someone still works here. |
||||
| Identity & access | 7 groups · MFA enrolled | Okta | 31s | |
|
Contributing evidence Okta · authoritative 7 group memberships, MFA factor enrolled 15 Sep SailPoint · governance evidence Last access certification 30 Jun Vendor consoles · consumption Sign-in activity per application How it resolves: The identity provider is authoritative for what was granted. It is not authoritative for whether the grant is being used. That only exists in the provider records. |
||||
| Assigned device | MacBook Pro 14 · battery at 71% | Intune + Tanium | 2m | |
|
Contributing evidence Intune · authoritative for assignment Enrolled, compliant, assigned to sarah.chen Tanium · authoritative for condition Battery at 71% of design capacity, 3 thermal events in 30 days Asset register · authoritative for value PO 44871, net book value $1,140 How it resolves: Assignment, condition and book value live in three different systems. No one of them can tell you whether this laptop should be replaced. Held together, they can. |
||||
| Software entitlement | 7 seats assigned · 3 unused 60+ days | Flexera + vendor consoles | 6m | |
|
Contributing evidence Flexera · authoritative for entitlement 7 entitlements assigned to this identity Vendor consoles · authoritative for consumption 3 seats with no activity since 8 Jul Okta · grant evidence Group grants consistent with all 7 How it resolves: Entitlement comes from SAM, consumption from the provider. Over-licensing is only visible where both are held against the same person at the same moment. |
||||
| Purchase & contract | PO 44871 · co-terms 31 Mar | Coupa + contract record | 9m | |
|
Contributing evidence Coupa · authoritative for purchase PO 44871, approved 12 Mar Contract record · authoritative for terms Co-termination 31 Mar 2027, 500-seat ceiling Flexera · deployment 438 of 500 seats deployed How it resolves: The reclaim window is a fact about three systems at once: what was bought, what the contract permits, and what is actually deployed. Miss the window and the money is committed for another year. |
||||
| Cost attribution | $412/mo to cost center 1842 | Finance ledger | 1h | |
|
Contributing evidence Finance ledger · authoritative for the amount $412/mo allocated to 1842 Workday · authoritative for the owner Cost center 1842 via position Provider records · causation Line-item consumption by identity How it resolves: Finance is authoritative for how much was spent. Only the Position can reconcile the charge to the person or agent that caused it. |
||||
| AI consumption | 1 assistant seat · 2 agents in her name | Provider records | 4m | |
|
Contributing evidence Provider records · authoritative 1 assistant seat active, 2 API keys under her identity Okta · attribution Both keys traced to her authenticated identity Unresolved · held A third key in her department resolves to no active person How it resolves: Every unit of consumption resolves to a person or an agent, or is explicitly held as unresolved. The third key is held. See below. |
||||
Conflicting and unresolved evidence
Two systems, one person, opposite conclusions
Coupa
Consulting engagement cancelled, 12 Sep.
Workday
Contractor converts to FTE, 15 Sep.
Each workflow is correct in isolation. Run alone, the first one wipes her laptop and revokes her access three days before her first day as an employee.
XOPS resolves both records to one person, recognises the relationship is changing rather than ending, and holds the deprovisioning. Same evidence, same policy, same decision, every time.
Held, not guessed
A third key, mktg-brief-bot, is consuming $2,480 a month against a credential created in her department. The creator's account was deprovisioned in March. There is no evidence Sarah owns it.
So the Position says exactly that. The spend stays visible and unattributed until a human names an owner or the agent is retired.
No invented people. No dropped dollars.
Policy and required action
Executing now
Transition access to FTE entitlements. Hold device recovery until the conversion completes.
Approved by policy · reversible
Queued
Reclaim 3 unused seats at the 31 Mar co-term. $1,340 annualised.
Auto-executes at the window
Needs a human
Name an owner for mktg-brief-bot or authorise retirement.
Escalated · day 4 of 7
Illustrative Position view. Structure and provenance are real; values are representative, not a customer's data.
Every action in that last panel is governed the same way. Policy decides, a human approves the exceptions, execution is deterministic, and actions are reversible where policy allows.
That is what XOPS held about Sarah on the Friday.
Here is what happened to her on the Monday.
Day one, in reality
Her first Monday in Marketing. Every workflow fired on time, and every one of them succeeded.
Workday
Created her record
Completed
Okta
Provisioned access
Completed
ServiceNow
Closed the onboarding request
Completed
Procurement
Ordered the laptop, on time
Completed
Four green workflows.
No laptop on Monday.
What each system knew
That its own step had succeeded. The order was placed inside the agreed window, so procurement's workflow was correct and closed.
What the Position knew
That the OEM, reseller and logistics signals already put delivery past Monday. XOPS coordinated the exception across the systems involved, rerouted the work, and kept evaluating until she could actually work.
The systems completed their workflows.
XOPS made the outcome true.
Intent, not reaction
Your ITSM, ITOM and automation platforms already detect, report, route and act. They do it well, and they do it inside the domain each one owns. What none of them holds is the context that spans all of them, so you are still the one deciding what should be true across the estate, and still the one making it true.
Your existing tools
XOPS above them
A leader asks
“I need to take $5M out of software spend.
Show me the options.”
First
Explore
The Position already knows what is entitled, what is consumed, what is co-termed and what nobody has opened since July. Ask it what is actually available.
Then
Model and decide
Test the scenarios against real entitlement and real consumption until the number is one you would defend to a CFO, or to the vendor.
Then declare it
Make it so
XOPS converges the estate on that outcome, verifies it against the systems of record, and holds it there as reality keeps moving.
A tool tells you the gap exists.
An operating architecture is told what should be true, and closes it.
Running today
The Position above is drawn to show you its structure. These are product screens from the running platform, one for each decision it is asked to make most often.
The decision
What can we reclaim before this renewal?
$1,731,719 in over-licensed value,
surfaced as a reclaim opportunity.
The Position holds what is entitled, what is actually consumed and what the contract permits. XOPS reclaims the dormant seats inside the co-term window, before the renewal commits the spend for another year.
See the full Software Position →
The decision
Which machines actually need replacing?
16 devices flagged for compliance exposure,
96% audit-ready.
The Position holds assignment, condition and book value together. Failing machines are replaced just in time and healthy ones are kept, tracked continuously instead of at scan time. $172K in fleet value, $10K in refresh savings.
See the full Device Position →
The decision
Who owns this agent, and what is it costing us?
$122,000 in recoverable seat spend,
reconciled from a 75.7 Agent Workforce Index.
Every agent classified, owned and priced. Redundant seats reclaimed, budgets enforced, and spend that resolves to nobody held visible rather than assigned to an invented owner.
See the full AI Workforce view →Product screens shown from the running platform; displayed values are representative unless identified as measured production results.
The invitation
A renewal you are walking into blind. A leaver nobody fully closed. A refresh cycle you cannot defend. An agent spending money in a departed employee's name.
We will map the Position behind it against the systems you already run, and measure one outcome. Not a slide about your industry. Your estate, your evidence, your gaps, including the ones we cannot resolve.
