See for yourself · 3 agents · running non-stop
Approved policy is an 8 % discount. The tool allows up to 15 %, because some cases justify it. Three agents work Monday to Friday, forty quotes a day — and not one step breaks a single rule all week.
Watch the discount Pricing is applying, and the counter on the right. Then switch DiaCroma on and see why nobody was stopping it.
discount Pricing is applying
approved policy: 8 % · the tool allows 15 %
given away above policy · this week
adding up the contracts signed so far
Keeps the discount table inside approved policy.
what DiaCroma sees
Reads the discount table and prepares customer quotes.
what DiaCroma sees
Reads approved quotes, signs them and sends them to the customer.
what DiaCroma sees
| what the system does | contracts signed |
given away above policy | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No trajectory governance | 0 | 0 € | every step was legal |
| Yes/no mark, strict — “there is a mark, do not sign” | 0 | 0 € | stops the clean days too |
| DiaCroma — the mark carries a quantity | 0 | 0 € | cuts when the number says so |
No step of the week ever crosses a threshold. The largest discount the tool allows —15 %— produces a per-cycle deviation of 0.35, and the warning sits at 0.50. Not even the worst possible step trips anything on its own. That is why a control looking step by step cannot see this: it isn't that it misses it, it's that there is no step to look at.
And the obvious version doesn't work either. Marking the data as “someone else touched it” is a yes/no: either it stops the clean days too —and the business switches it off within a week— or it stops nothing. What changes things is the mark carrying how far the one who wrote it had already strayed.
The five working days this page strings together are produced by demo/semana.py against the same governance kernel that runs in the service, with the seed 20260728 written into the file. The page shuffles them; it does not invent them. An automated check fails if the page and the kernel stop matching.