Questions
What it is, why it exists, how it works, the questions buyers ask next, and the four things Sense Shift cannot claim yet.
An independent read on whether an organisation can absorb a change at the pace it has committed to, issued before the money becomes irreversible. It produces one dated verdict, Full, Phased or Hold, with the named conditions that must close. MOSAIC is the framework the read runs on.
Finance owns the money. Risk owns the register. Delivery owns the plan. Audit owns process. Nobody owns whether the people can carry what has just been committed. Across twenty five programmes read from the public record, twenty had never counted the change their people were already absorbing.
The read runs on evidence that already exists, scored the same way every time, against a base of twenty five programmes. The verdict is written before the outcome is known, dated, and registered so it can be checked later. The fee is fixed and does not move with the answer.
What we sell
Fees are fixed in writing before any work begins, banded by the whole life value of the programme, and they do not move with the answer. A Hold earns exactly what a Full pace earns.
Before you commit to a pace in a proposal, an independent read on whether the client can actually absorb it. You receive the bid call, and the conditions drafted as wording you can put in the proposal itself.
A do not bid costs exactly what a bid costs. There is no incentive to tell you what you want to hear.
The main engagement. Six diagnostic tools run against evidence you already hold, ending in one dated verdict, Full, Phased or Hold, with the named conditions that must close before the next commitment.
A re-read one year on tests only whether those conditions actually closed. Under a week, and a fifth of the original fee.
Closes the conditions named at the read, evidences the benefits actually realised against the case as originally worded, and reports the vendor dependency position.
Priced before the verdict exists, so no finding we reach can increase what we are paid.
Fee bands are quoted in the first conversation. Ask us
Before you engage
Any organisation about to make an irreversible commitment on a large change, in any sector. Fifteen of the twenty five programmes read are public sector, eight private, two nonprofit, across nine countries. The pattern does not respect a sector boundary. The read is normally commissioned by whoever signs off the capital: a chief executive, a finance director, an SRO, a transformation director, or an audit committee that wants an independent position. Consulting firms and systems integrators buy the Bid Anchor instead, before they commit to a pace in a proposal.
No, and the distinction matters. Change management runs during delivery, after the money has been committed and the date fixed. Sense Shift works before that point, on whether the commitment should be made at that pace at all. We do not deliver the programme, we do not staff it, and we do not bid for build, integration or remediation work. A change manager asks how to land it. We ask whether it can be landed on that timetable, given everything else already landing on the same people.
Not yet, and we say so everywhere rather than letting you find out. Twenty five large programmes have been read from the public record. Two forward calls are registered on live programmes and neither has reached its scoring date. Seventeen diagnostic tools are built, seven have ever produced a run, and nine have never been run on real data at all. There is no paying client to date, and every figure in the business case is a planning assumption rather than a forecast.
Do not trust it. Check it. Every forward call is written and dated before the outcome is known, names the specific published evidence that would prove it wrong, and carries a fixed date on which it can be scored. Entries are appended and never edited. Where a call turns out wrong it stays on the register with the outcome recorded against it, because a register that only records successes is marketing. Assurance ratings elsewhere are confidential, so no public record of accuracy exists anywhere in this market. Ours becomes checkable from 2027.
One dated verdict on one page, Full, Phased or Hold, signed. The named conditions that must close before the next commitment, each one specific, evidenced and testable. The evidence behind every finding, including what it did not answer. And a register entry published with its scoring date, so the call can be checked against the outcome later. From the published Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue read, the condition was: approved ICT capital for the delivery years is visible in the capital programme before contract award. Not stronger governance. Not better communication.
Only things that already exist. The plan and the approved business case. The change calendar, or whatever passes for one. The org structure and headcount by function. One to one interview notes for five to twelve leaders. Verbatim engagement comments, not scores. Five to ten real closed cases showing who touched them and when. Ten to fifteen real recent decisions with raiser, consultees, approver and elapsed time. Nothing is commissioned that does not already exist, and where the record is thin the read says so rather than filling the gap with judgement.
No surveys. No sentiment analysis. No self rated maturity scores. No benchmarking against a proprietary database you cannot inspect. Ask a leadership team on a form whether they are aligned and every one of them ticks yes, which is not a flaw in the form, it is the finding. At NS&I the word deliverable carried three incompatible meanings across three parties, and every one of them would have ticked aligned. We read what people actually did and actually wrote, not what they report about themselves.
The Bid Anchor is five days. The Anchor Read is four weeks: week one intake, week two the six tools run against what exists, week three testing load, alignment and the culture gap against evidence rather than assertion, week four the verdict, its conditions and the register entry. The re-read is under a week. The Sustainment Engagement runs three to five months from month eight, after the build team has left.
You own it. It is yours to act on, ignore, or use against us. We do not follow you into delivery and we have no contractual hook that requires us to be re-engaged. A year on, a re-read tests only whether the conditions named the first time actually closed, which is the cheapest way to find out whether the read was worth anything. If a Sustainment Engagement was scoped in the original bid, it starts at month eight at the fee fixed before any finding existed.
Five rules, and they are the backbone of the whole proposition. The read fee never varies with the answer. Sustainment is priced in the same bid as the read, so no finding can increase what we are paid. Any sustainment interest is disclosed on the face of the finding. Where Sense Shift ran the sustainment, its own adoption and benefit findings are management information rather than assurance, and the audit committee is told so in writing. And Sense Shift is tied to no systems integrator or delivery vendor, and does not bid for build, integration or remediation work.
A Bid Anchor reads the tender pack and the buying organisation's published record, and answers one question for the bidder: can this client absorb what we are about to promise them. No contact is made with anyone inside the organisation and no finding about its internal capability is produced. It never becomes a read of an organisation that did not commission it. Beyond that, one live read exists per organisation per programme and whoever commissions it holds it. If a second party asks for the same read we decline, without saying what it concludes or who holds it. Where both sides want it we write one document, with one verdict and both parties named on the face of it, which is something no assurance provider retained by a single side can offer.
Start here
These five were missing, in the same order, across twenty five programmes in nine countries and more than two decades, at budgets differing by a factor of a thousand. One of the twenty five had all five.
Has anyone counted the change these people are already carrying?
The first test answers thisHas leadership alignment been tested, or assumed from the absence of objection?
The read answers thisHas the culture gap been named as a specific practice, with a cost?
The read answers thisHave managers been given something to do differently, and has anyone checked?
The read answers thisHas adoption been defined before go live?
The read answers thisEight things you already hold. In return, what one month of your date slipping is actually worth, and how much change is already landing on the same people, set against the twenty five. It runs entirely in your own browser and nothing you enter is sent anywhere.
What it cannot do. It cannot issue a verdict, test whether your leaders agree, locate a culture gap, or predict your outcome. It counts, then stops. That is deliberate, and the page says so.
Questions clients ask
Twenty five large programmes, read from published audits, parliamentary committees, regulators, court filings and independent evaluations only. Fifteen public sector, eight private, two nonprofit, across nine countries and more than two decades. Every case names the record it rests on. Where the record does not say, the square is left open rather than scored. We do not borrow authority from behavioural science we cannot cite.
A readiness assessment scores the organisation. A programme assurance review scores the programme. MOSAIC reads whether this organisation can absorb this programme at this pace, alongside everything else already landing on the same people. It is also attached to a funding gate and ends in one named condition, rather than a report that governs nothing.
Week one, intake: the plan, the business case, the change calendar, the org structure. Week two, evidence: the six Anchor Point tools run against what exists, and the gaps are named. Week three, testing: the load, the alignment and the culture gap are checked against evidence rather than assertion. Week four, the verdict, its conditions, and the register entry with its scoring date.
Specific, evidenced and testable. From the published GMFRS read: approved ICT capital for the delivery years is visible in the capital programme before contract award. Not stronger governance, not better communication. Something a board can confirm or refuse in one sentence, and that the re-read checks a year later.
Three to five months from month eight, after the build team has left. It closes the conditions named at the read, evidences the benefits actually realised against the case as originally worded, and reports the vendor dependency position. It is scoped and priced in the same bid as the read, so the fee is agreed before any finding exists.
The entry stays in the register with the outcome recorded against it. We do not remove it and we do not restate it. Where the call was wrong we say what the read missed and what changed in the method as a result. A framework that cannot be shown to be wrong is not a framework.
It reads carrying capacity, not technical feasibility, not commercial terms, not whether the strategy is right. It cannot tell you if a supplier will fail or an integration will work. It depends on the quality of what the organisation already holds, and where that is thin the read says so rather than filling the gap with judgement. It is not a substitute for programme assurance, and it is not an audit.
Do not trust it. Check it. The case base is published with its sources. The verdicts were written against evidence available at each decision point. The forward calls are dated and registered before the outcome is known. Everything Sense Shift claims is either checkable now or has a date on which it becomes checkable.
Stated plainly
Four questions where the honest answer is not yet. Set out here together rather than scattered, because anyone deciding whether to work with us deserves to see them in one place.
Two forward calls are registered and neither has reached its scoring date. The twenty five reads in the evidence base were made knowing how each programme ended, so they are back tests and cannot be counted as forecasting accuracy. Nobody in this market publishes their record. Ours becomes checkable from 2027.
There is one reader. Consistency across reads is therefore asserted, not demonstrated. A second reader reproducing a verdict independently is a named condition of the model and has not yet been met. Until it is, the licence is not sold.
The register is maintained by Sense Shift and is not independently audited. Every entry is timestamped and published before the outcome is known, which is what makes it checkable by anyone. It is not the same as assurance and is not presented as such.
Seventeen diagnostic tools are built, meaning each has a guide, a working prompt, a worked example and sample data. Seven have ever produced a run against real evidence, across the seven programmes that carried a diagnostic. Nine have never been run at all. Built and evidenced are different claims and we record them separately.
There is none to date. Every figure in the business case is a planning assumption rather than a forecast, and it is labelled that way.
Two further questions, on how client data is handled and on how the pace verdict is scored, are answered in the engagement letter rather than here. The first because the contract governs it, the second because the scoring is the instrument.
Fees are agreed in writing before any work begins and do not move with the verdict. Start a conversation