Problem statement
Information that arrives after the decision it could have changed
Operationally valuable information exists throughout the physical-cash ecosystem. We're investigating whether latency between organizations prevents that information from being acted on in time.
Working construct
Late Information Event (LIE)
An operational event in which information that could reasonably have influenced a cash or logistics decision existed before the recipient's relevant decision or planning cutoff, but reached that recipient only after the cutoff.
Working definition, an EXCORA research construct, not an industry standard.
A Late Information Event is not simply slow communication. It requires three things: a decision or planning cutoff, information that was knowable before that cutoff, and an outcome that could plausibly have differed. Where any of those is absent, we record the response as evidence that the hypothesis does not hold in that case.
Consequences reported
What a delay can turn into
- unnecessary service attempt
- off-schedule replenishment
- additional dispatch
- cash-out
- manual escalation
- overtime
- missed service
- excess cash
- avoidable friction
These are categories participants can select during the intake. We make no claim about how frequent or costly any of them are until there is evidence to report.
Why information stays put
Barriers participants can select
- internal procedure
- approval requirement
- disconnected systems
- manual email/phone
- vendor portals
- contract limits
- security and confidentiality concerns
- unclear responsibility
- information not yet trusted
- recipient has no way to receive it
What would disprove this
Evidence against the hypothesis
If participants report that the information they need already arrives before their cutoffs, that existing systems and relationships already close the gap, or that earlier information would not change a decision, the hypothesis is weakened. The intake records those answers explicitly, and the analysis reports them with the same prominence as supporting evidence.
Participants who have no example to share are counted. "No example" is a finding.