Discover your WCI Score in the language a CFO will use.
This is the CFO lens on the Workforce Contradiction Index - the same five contradiction lenses used across every ExpandPro diagnostic, translated into capital terms. It shows where spend, evidence, productivity claims, and succession planning have pulled apart from what the operating system can actually defend.
4 contradiction dimensions
Mapped to ExpandPro's canonical lens model instead of standalone maturity ratings.
10 CFO questions · ~10 minutes
A short finance-grade intake built to surface contradiction, not generic confidence.
Capital Misalignment Score + ROI Confidence Grade
Output includes exposure range, inverse ROI shorthand, and the contradiction driving the largest share of risk.
The expensive problem is usually misalignment, not simply overspending.
Where spend and reward have drifted apart
The diagnostic looks for the places capital is allocated to one outcome while the operating system still rewards another.
Where the investment case and the evidence have drifted apart
It separates people investments with a real business case behind them from the ones that became stories the Board cannot actually validate.
Where claimed and measured productivity have drifted apart
The snapshot checks whether efficiency gains are actually measured against a baseline, or inferred from optimism and anecdote.
Where the succession story and succession reality have drifted apart
A critical role can look covered on the org chart and still have no real backup. Turnover, failed promotions, and ramp drag often sit in different spreadsheets even though they describe one capital problem.
WCI lens preview
This lens asks where indefensible spend is still protected by the operating story, even when the evidence no longer holds.
Framework
4 contradiction dimensions, mapped to ExpandPro's canonical model
Audit length
10 CFO questions · ~10 minutes
Output
Capital Misalignment Score + ROI Confidence Grade + exposure range
What the snapshot measures
Four contradictions that turn people cost into a capital story.
Each dimension is scored as a gap - the distance between what's claimed or expected and what the evidence actually supports - not as a standalone maturity rating. The four gaps are then combined and inverted into the published WCI score.
Spend vs. Reward
Whether the people-cost investments the organization is making line up with what compensation, promotion, and recognition actually reward. When the two point in different directions, spend quietly funds behavior it did not intend to.
Investment Case vs. Board Evidence
Whether the rationale behind a people investment would still hold up against the operating evidence leadership can actually defend today.
Claimed Productivity vs. Measured Productivity
Whether efficiency and productivity gains attributed to a people investment are verified against a real baseline, or asserted based on confidence and anecdote.
Succession Story vs. Succession Reality
Whether critical roles that appear covered on paper are actually covered in practice, or would fail under an unplanned departure.
What you leave with
A finance-ready WCI snapshot you can use in a real operating conversation.
Your CFO-facing WCI score, paired with an inverse A-F ROI Confidence Grade.
An estimated dollar-exposure range, with the methodology behind it shown alongside the number.
The specific contradiction driving the largest share of your exposure.
Top three capital-inefficient line items, framed in CFO language.
A one-sentence headline finding you can carry into a Board conversation.
Step 1
Answer the CFO diagnostic
Ten questions focused on people spend, productivity, promotion quality, turnover cost, and where the evidence behind each claim breaks down.
Step 2
We score the contradiction pattern
Your responses are scored across four gap-based dimensions, combined into a defended finance composite, then inverted into the CFO lens on WCI.
Step 3
You receive the snapshot
When generation completes, you land on a Board-presentable capital efficiency snapshot: WCI score, exposure range, and inverse ROI shorthand.
How this WCI lens is read
Higher WCI means more capital contradiction.
This lens scores four underlying contradiction gaps first, then inverts that defended composite into the published WCI score. Higher WCI means more capital contradiction; the A-F ROI grade is the inverse shorthand. Your grade reflects the evidence your ten answers actually support - a score built on thinner input is shown as a directional read, not a precise measurement, until validated further.
A
0-20Low contradiction. Spend, evidence, productivity claims, and succession planning are aligned well enough to defend the return story with evidence. Rare.
B
21-35Some contradiction is present, but most major line items are still defensible with only a few relying on judgment more than proof.
C
36-55The common mid-market position: some return is real, but the evidence is partial and the operating system still muddies the picture.
D
56-75Material contradiction. Capital is being allocated faster than measurement and operating follow-through can defend it.
F
76-100Acute contradiction. The capital story and the measurable operating reality have meaningfully come apart.
The canonical model, in CFO terms
Same five contradictions used across every ExpandPro diagnostic.
Four apply directly to capital allocation. The fifth, Promise vs. Training, shows up more directly in the general and PE lenses, where it is less naturally a CFO-first question.
Why the fifth lens is noted separately
Promise vs. Training is still part of the canonical ExpandPro model. It simply appears more directly in the general and PE versions, where capability-build questions are more naturally surfaced in the diagnostic language.
Final CTA
Discover your WCI Score and see where spend is outrunning evidence.
Ten questions, one snapshot, and a much clearer answer to which people-cost investments are working, which ones are exposed, and which ones need tighter measurement.