We Value Your Privacy

    We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience, serve personalized content, and analyze our traffic. By clicking "Accept All", you consent to our use of cookies. You can customize your preferences or learn more in our Cookie Policy.

    Back to Blog
    Artificial Intelligence
    Part 2 of Series
    Featured

    From Insight to Action: Turning LLM-Built KPI Trees into Decision Engines

    Using LLM reasoning, causal modeling, and constrained optimization to transform KPI trees into autonomous decision systems

    45 min read
    Finarb Analytics Consulting
    KPI Decision Engines visualization

    In Part 1 we saw how Large Language Models can discover and validate KPIs, automatically building a living KPI tree that connects data to business goals. But insight alone doesn't create impact — action does.

    The next frontier is using that KPI tree as a simulation and optimization layer, where every KPI becomes a controllable variable, and the system can answer questions like:

    • "If we reduce delivery time by 10%, what happens to CSAT?"
    • "How should we allocate marketing spend to maximize ROI under budget limits?"
    • "Which operational levers yield the best cost–benefit trade-off?"

    That's what our KPIxpert framework delivers — powered by LLM reasoning, causal modeling, and constrained optimization.

    01.The Decision Layer: Extending the KPI Tree

    In Part 1, we explored how LLMs can automatically discover and validate KPIs, building a living knowledge graph that connects raw data to strategic business goals. But there's a critical gap between insight and impact — the ability to act on what we've learned.

    The decision layer bridges this gap by transforming your KPI tree from a measurement framework into an active decision-making system. Instead of simply reporting "Customer Satisfaction dropped by 5%," the system can now answer: "To recover that 5%, allocate $200K to improve delivery speed by 8% and reduce stockouts by 3%."

    Our Foundation: The KPI Tree Structure

    Customer_Satisfaction (CSAT Score: 4.0/5.0)
     ├── On_Time_Delivery_Rate (Current: 82%)
     ├── Stockout_Rate (Current: 12%)
     ├── Support_Tickets_per_Order (Current: 0.15)
     └── Order_Cycle_Time_Days (Current: 4.2 days)

    The first step in building a decision layer is classifying each KPI based on its controllability and dependencies. This classification determines how we can manipulate the system to achieve desired outcomes.

    Three Types of Variables in Decision Systems

    1. Controllable Variables (Decision Levers)

    Direct business actions we can take: staffing levels, budget allocations, process changes, pricing adjustments

    2. Influenced Variables (Intermediate Metrics)

    KPIs that respond to our actions but aren't directly controlled: delivery rates, stockout frequencies, ticket volumes

    3. Outcome Variables (Business Goals)

    Ultimate metrics we're trying to optimize: customer satisfaction, revenue, profitability, market share

    Each child node can be treated as a decision variable (something we can influence) or a derived variable (something that reacts). LLMs help classify these automatically by understanding business context and causal relationships.

    LLM-Powered Variable Classification Prompt

    decision_prompt = """
    You are an expert business analyst helping classify KPIs for a decision optimization system.
    
    Context: We're building a decision engine for an e-commerce company.
    
    KPI List:
    1. On_Time_Delivery_Rate - percentage of orders delivered on promised date
    2. Stockout_Rate - percentage of attempted purchases where item unavailable
    3. Support_Tickets_per_Order - average number of customer service contacts
    4. Order_Cycle_Time_Days - days from order placement to delivery
    5. Customer_Satisfaction (CSAT) - overall satisfaction score (1-5)
    
    For each KPI, determine:
    - Variable Type: controllable, influenced, or outcome
    - Controllability: direct, indirect, or none
    - Business Levers: specific actions that can change this metric
    - Dependencies: which other KPIs affect this one
    - Time Lag: how long before changes take effect
    - Cost to Improve: relative expense (low/medium/high)
    
    Return structured JSON with detailed reasoning for each classification.
    """
    
    from openai import OpenAI
    client = OpenAI()
    
    resp = client.chat.completions.create(
        model="gpt-4o",
        messages=[{"role":"user","content":decision_prompt}],
        response_format={"type": "json_object"}
    )
    
    import json
    classification = json.loads(resp.choices[0].message.content)
    print(json.dumps(classification, indent=2))

    Detailed LLM Classification Output

    {
      "kpis": [
        {
          "name": "On_Time_Delivery_Rate",
          "type": "influenced",
          "controllability": "indirect",
          "levers": [
            {
              "action": "Increase warehouse staffing",
              "impact": "high",
              "cost": "medium",
              "timelag": "1-2 weeks"
            },
            {
              "action": "Implement predictive routing",
              "impact": "medium",
              "cost": "high",
              "timelag": "2-3 months"
            },
            {
              "action": "Partner with additional carriers",
              "impact": "medium",
              "cost": "low",
              "timelag": "2-4 weeks"
            }
          ],
          "dependencies": ["Stockout_Rate", "Weather_Conditions"],
          "reasoning": "While we cannot directly set the delivery rate, we can influence it through operational improvements. Historical data shows 0.65 correlation with CSAT."
        },
        {
          "name": "Stockout_Rate",
          "type": "influenced",
          "controllability": "indirect",
          "levers": [
            {
              "action": "Implement AI demand forecasting",
              "impact": "high",
              "cost": "high",
              "timelag": "1-3 months"
            },
            {
              "action": "Increase safety stock levels",
              "impact": "high",
              "cost": "medium",
              "timelag": "immediate"
            },
            {
              "action": "Diversify supplier network",
              "impact": "medium",
              "cost": "medium",
              "timelag": "2-6 months"
            }
          ],
          "dependencies": ["Demand_Forecast_Accuracy", "Supplier_Reliability"],
          "reasoning": "Stockouts result from inventory planning decisions. Reducing stockouts by 1% typically costs $50K in increased inventory carrying costs."
        },
        {
          "name": "Support_Tickets_per_Order",
          "type": "influenced",
          "controllability": "indirect",
          "levers": [
            {
              "action": "Deploy AI chatbot for common queries",
              "impact": "high",
              "cost": "medium",
              "timelag": "1-2 months"
            },
            {
              "action": "Improve self-service documentation",
              "impact": "medium",
              "cost": "low",
              "timelag": "2-4 weeks"
            },
            {
              "action": "Proactive order status notifications",
              "impact": "medium",
              "cost": "low",
              "timelag": "immediate"
            }
          ],
          "dependencies": ["Order_Accuracy", "Product_Quality", "Website_UX"],
          "reasoning": "Support tickets are reactive to customer issues. Prevention through better processes is more effective than handling volume."
        },
        {
          "name": "Order_Cycle_Time_Days",
          "type": "influenced",
          "controllability": "indirect",
          "dependencies": ["On_Time_Delivery_Rate", "Stockout_Rate", "Warehouse_Processing_Time"],
          "reasoning": "This is a composite metric derived from multiple operational factors. Changes here reflect improvements in underlying processes."
        },
        {
          "name": "Customer_Satisfaction",
          "type": "outcome",
          "controllability": "none",
          "dependencies": ["On_Time_Delivery_Rate", "Stockout_Rate", "Support_Tickets_per_Order", "Order_Cycle_Time_Days"],
          "reasoning": "CSAT is our ultimate outcome metric. It responds to improvements across all operational KPIs but cannot be directly manipulated."
        }
      ]
    }

    This rich classification provides not just categories, but actionable intelligence: which levers to pull, expected costs, implementation timelines, and causal dependencies. This becomes the foundation for our simulation and optimization layers.

    Why This Classification Matters

    • For Simulation: We know which variables we can change and which respond automatically
    • For Optimization: We understand cost-benefit trade-offs for each action
    • For Planning: We can estimate implementation timelines and resource needs
    • For Communication: We can explain recommendations in business terms executives understand

    02.Simulating "What-If" Scenarios with Validated Models

    With our variables classified and relationships quantified (from Part 1's validation layer), we can now build a simulation engine that predicts how changes ripple through the system. This isn't guesswork — it's math based on real data.

    The Simulation Framework

    Our simulation engine combines three components:

    1. Validated Weights

    Influence coefficients from regression analysis in Part 1

    2. Baseline Values

    Current state of each KPI from recent data

    3. Change Propagation

    Rules for how adjustments flow through dependencies

    Python Simulation Engine Implementation

    import numpy as np
    import pandas as pd
    from typing import Dict, Tuple
    
    class KPISimulator:
        """
        Simulates the impact of operational changes on business KPIs
        using validated influence weights and dependency graphs.
        """
        
        def __init__(self, weights: Dict[str, float], baselines: Dict[str, float]):
            """
            Args:
                weights: Validated influence coefficients for each KPI on CSAT
                baselines: Current baseline values for each KPI
            """
            self.weights = weights
            self.baselines = baselines
            
            # Validated coefficients from Part 1's regression analysis
            self.influence = {
                "On_Time_Delivery_Rate":  0.65,   # Strong positive impact
                "Stockout_Rate":         -0.40,   # Moderate negative impact
                "Support_Tickets_per_Order": -0.55,  # Strong negative impact
                "Order_Cycle_Time_Days": -0.25    # Moderate negative impact
            }
            
            # Secondary effects: how KPIs influence each other
            self.cross_effects = {
                ("Stockout_Rate", "On_Time_Delivery_Rate"): -0.3,  # Stockouts hurt delivery
                ("On_Time_Delivery_Rate", "Support_Tickets_per_Order"): -0.2,  # Better delivery = fewer tickets
                ("Stockout_Rate", "Support_Tickets_per_Order"): 0.4   # Stockouts cause complaints
            }
        
        def simulate_csat(self, 
                         on_time_delta: float = 0, 
                         stockout_delta: float = 0,
                         tickets_delta: float = 0, 
                         cycle_delta: float = 0,
                         include_cross_effects: bool = True) -> Dict[str, float]:
            """
            Simulate CSAT change given operational improvements.
            
            Args:
                *_delta: Percentage point changes (e.g., 0.05 = +5%)
                include_cross_effects: Whether to model indirect effects
                
            Returns:
                Dict with predicted values and changes
            """
            base_csat = self.baselines.get("CSAT", 4.0)
            
            # Direct effects on CSAT
            direct_impact = (
                self.influence["On_Time_Delivery_Rate"] * on_time_delta +
                self.influence["Stockout_Rate"] * stockout_delta +
                self.influence["Support_Tickets_per_Order"] * tickets_delta +
                self.influence["Order_Cycle_Time_Days"] * cycle_delta
            )
            
            # Indirect effects (changes in one KPI affect others)
            indirect_impact = 0
            if include_cross_effects:
                # Stockouts reduce on-time delivery capability
                if stockout_delta != 0:
                    induced_delivery_change = stockout_delta * self.cross_effects[("Stockout_Rate", "On_Time_Delivery_Rate")]
                    indirect_impact += self.influence["On_Time_Delivery_Rate"] * induced_delivery_change
                
                # Better delivery reduces support load
                if on_time_delta != 0:
                    induced_ticket_change = on_time_delta * self.cross_effects[("On_Time_Delivery_Rate", "Support_Tickets_per_Order")]
                    indirect_impact += self.influence["Support_Tickets_per_Order"] * induced_ticket_change
            
            total_impact = direct_impact + indirect_impact
            predicted_csat = base_csat + total_impact
            
            # Calculate updated KPI values accounting for cross-effects
            updated_kpis = {
                "On_Time_Delivery_Rate": self.baselines["On_Time_Delivery_Rate"] + on_time_delta,
                "Stockout_Rate": self.baselines["Stockout_Rate"] + stockout_delta,
                "Support_Tickets_per_Order": self.baselines["Support_Tickets_per_Order"] + tickets_delta,
                "Order_Cycle_Time_Days": self.baselines["Order_Cycle_Time_Days"] + cycle_delta
            }
            
            if include_cross_effects:
                # Apply secondary effects
                updated_kpis["On_Time_Delivery_Rate"] += stockout_delta * self.cross_effects[("Stockout_Rate", "On_Time_Delivery_Rate")]
                updated_kpis["Support_Tickets_per_Order"] += (
                    stockout_delta * self.cross_effects[("Stockout_Rate", "Support_Tickets_per_Order")] +
                    on_time_delta * self.cross_effects[("On_Time_Delivery_Rate", "Support_Tickets_per_Order")]
                )
            
            return {
                "predicted_csat": round(predicted_csat, 3),
                "csat_change": round(total_impact, 3),
                "direct_impact": round(direct_impact, 3),
                "indirect_impact": round(indirect_impact, 3),
                "updated_kpis": {k: round(v, 3) for k, v in updated_kpis.items()}
            }
        
        def run_scenario_analysis(self, scenarios: Dict[str, Dict]) -> pd.DataFrame:
            """
            Run multiple scenarios and compare results.
            
            Args:
                scenarios: Dict of scenario_name -> {kpi_name: delta_value}
                
            Returns:
                DataFrame with comparative results
            """
            results = []
            
            for scenario_name, deltas in scenarios.items():
                result = self.simulate_csat(**deltas)
                results.append({
                    "Scenario": scenario_name,
                    "Predicted CSAT": result["predicted_csat"],
                    "CSAT Change": result["csat_change"],
                    "Direct Impact": result["direct_impact"],
                    "Indirect Impact": result["indirect_impact"],
                    **result["updated_kpis"]
                })
            
            return pd.DataFrame(results)
    
    # Initialize simulator with current baselines
    baselines = {
        "CSAT": 4.0,
        "On_Time_Delivery_Rate": 0.82,
        "Stockout_Rate": 0.12,
        "Support_Tickets_per_Order": 0.15,
        "Order_Cycle_Time_Days": 4.2
    }
    
    simulator = KPISimulator(weights={}, baselines=baselines)
    
    # Define business scenarios to evaluate
    scenarios = {
        "Status Quo": {
            "on_time_delta": 0,
            "stockout_delta": 0,
            "tickets_delta": 0,
            "cycle_delta": 0
        },
        "Logistics Focus": {
            "on_time_delta": 0.05,  # +5% on-time delivery
            "stockout_delta": -0.02,  # -2% stockouts
            "tickets_delta": 0,
            "cycle_delta": 0
        },
        "Support Automation": {
            "on_time_delta": 0.02,
            "stockout_delta": 0,
            "tickets_delta": -0.03,  # -3% tickets per order
            "cycle_delta": 0
        },
        "Balanced Approach": {
            "on_time_delta": 0.04,
            "stockout_delta": -0.02,
            "tickets_delta": -0.02,
            "cycle_delta": -0.3  # -0.3 days
        },
        "Aggressive Improvement": {
            "on_time_delta": 0.10,
            "stockout_delta": -0.05,
            "tickets_delta": -0.05,
            "cycle_delta": -0.5
        }
    }
    
    results_df = simulator.run_scenario_analysis(scenarios)
    print(results_df.to_string(index=False))

    Sample Output:

    Scenario CSAT Change Direct Indirect
    Status Quo 4.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
    Logistics Focus 4.330 +0.330 +0.313 +0.017
    Support Automation 4.007 +0.007 -0.003 +0.010
    Balanced Approach 4.401 +0.401 +0.371 +0.030
    Aggressive Improvement 4.783 +0.783 +0.725 +0.058

    Notice how indirect impacts compound: improving on-time delivery not only boosts CSAT directly (+0.65 coefficient), but also reduces support tickets, creating additional CSAT gains. This is why cross-effect modeling matters.

    Key Insight: Non-Linear Effects

    Real business systems exhibit non-linearities that simple models miss:

    • Diminishing Returns: The first 5% improvement in on-time delivery might boost CSAT by 0.325 points, but the next 5% only adds 0.280 due to saturation effects
    • Threshold Effects: Stockout rate must drop below 8% before customers notice improvement (perception thresholds)
    • Interaction Effects: Simultaneous improvements in delivery AND support create synergies worth 1.2x the sum of individual effects

    Advanced implementations use polynomial regression or neural networks to capture these nuances, which we'll cover in Part 3.

    03.LLM-Generated Narrative: From Numbers to Strategy

    Numbers tell the truth, but stories drive decisions. Executives don't have time to parse simulation output — they need clear, actionable intelligence. This is where LLMs transform raw analytical results into strategic narratives.

    The Narrative Generation Pipeline

    # LLM generates executive summaries from simulation data
    # Example prompt structure for narrative generation
    
    prompt = """
    Analyze these simulation scenarios and provide executive summary:
    - Logistics Focus: CSAT +0.330 (cost: $260K)
    - Support Automation: CSAT +0.007 (cost: $140K)  
    - Balanced Approach: CSAT +0.401 (cost: $298K)
    - Aggressive: CSAT +0.783 (cost: $580K)
    
    Budget constraint: $300K
    Recommend optimal path with timeline and resource needs.
    """
    Generated Executive Summary

    Opportunity: We can close the competitive CSAT gap and improve customer retention by 15-20% through targeted operational improvements. Our analysis shows that a balanced investment of $300K across logistics optimization and inventory management can lift our CSAT from 4.0 to 4.4 within 90 days — matching industry leaders and positioning us for accelerated growth. The highest-impact scenario focuses on delivery reliability (+4pp) and stockout reduction (-2pp), which together account for 92% of the predicted satisfaction gain.

    Trade-offs and Resources: While aggressive improvements across all dimensions could yield a 0.78-point CSAT increase, the balanced approach offers superior ROI at 2.8x over 12 months while requiring fewer organizational changes. The primary resource need is 180Kforrouteoptimizationtechnologyand180K for route optimization technology and80K for enhanced demand forecasting tools. Implementation will require 2 FTEs from logistics and 1 data scientist for model maintenance. The main trade-off is accepting a 4-month timeline for full impact versus attempting faster but less sustainable solutions.

    Next Steps: Week 1-2: Procure predictive routing software and finalize carrier partnerships. Week 3-4: Deploy demand forecasting model and adjust safety stock policies. Month 2: Monitor early indicators (delivery punctuality, stockout frequency) and refine models. Month 3: Full rollout with continuous A/B testing. Assign Sarah Chen (VP Operations) as program lead with bi-weekly steering committee reviews. Expected breakeven at month 6, with full ROI realized by month 12 through improved retention and reduced churn.

    This narrative doesn't just report findings — it provides a complete decision package: the opportunity, the trade-offs, the resource requirements, and the execution roadmap. All generated automatically from simulation data.

    Advanced Narrative Features

    Persona-Specific Summaries

    Generate different versions for CFO (ROI focus), COO (operational details), and CEO (strategic positioning)

    Risk Narratives

    Automatically identify and explain downside scenarios, dependencies, and mitigation strategies

    Comparative Analysis

    "This approach outperforms last quarter's initiative by 2.3x at 60% of the cost"

    Time-Series Projections

    Generate month-by-month narratives showing expected progress and milestones

    04.From Simulation to Constrained Optimization

    Simulations answer:

    "What if?"

    Optimization answers:

    "What's best?"

    Below we use a simple constrained optimizer (scipy) to maximize CSAT under limited budget.

    from scipy.optimize import minimize
    
    # cost per 1% improvement for each KPI
    cost = {
        "On_Time_Delivery_Rate":  80_000,
        "Stockout_Rate":          50_000,
        "Support_Tickets_per_Order": 60_000
    }
    
    budget = 300_000
    
    def objective(x):
        on_time, stockout, tickets = x
        return -(simulate_csat(on_time, stockout, tickets) - 4.0)
    
    def constraint(x):
        return budget - (
            abs(on_time)*cost["On_Time_Delivery_Rate"] +
            abs(stockout)*cost["Stockout_Rate"] +
            abs(tickets)*cost["Support_Tickets_per_Order"]
        )
    
    cons = {"type":"ineq","fun":constraint}
    x0 = [0,0,0]
    res = minimize(objective, x0, constraints=cons)
    res

    The output might show:

    Variable Optimal Change
    On-Time Delivery +0.06 (+6%)
    Stockout Rate -0.03 (-3%)
    Support Tickets -0.02 (-2%)

    Meaning: Invest to improve on-time delivery by 6 pp, reduce stockouts by 3 pp, and support tickets by 2 pp within budget for maximum CSAT gain.

    5. LLM as Decision Narrator

    Now let's generate an executive summary directly from the optimizer output.

    opt_summary = f"""
    Optimization results:
    Improve On_Time_Delivery by 6%
    Reduce Stockout_Rate by 3%
    Reduce Support_Tickets_per_Order by 2%
    Predicted CSAT +0.38
    Write a 3-sentence action plan.
    """
    print(client.chat.completions.create(
        model="gpt-4o-mini",
        messages=[{"role":"user","content":opt_summary}]
    ).choices[0].message.content)

    "Prioritize logistics optimization to raise on-time delivery by 6 points, allocating the largest share of the budget to route automation and staffing. Strengthen inventory forecasting to cut stockouts by 3 points. Parallel improvements in customer-support automation will drive a total CSAT increase of 0.4 within current budget."

    That's LLM-powered management guidance, automatically grounded in numbers.

    6. Adding Causal Reasoning (Optional Advanced Layer)

    For higher-stakes domains (healthcare, BFSI), we don't rely purely on correlations. We integrate causal models (dowhy, econml) so the LLM can interpret causal graphs and identify which interventions truly drive change.

    from dowhy import CausalModel
    model = CausalModel(
        data=df,
        treatment="on_time",
        outcome="csat",
        common_causes=["stockout_flag","support_tickets"]
    )
    identified_estimand = model.identify_effect()
    causal_estimate = model.estimate_effect(
        identified_estimand,
        method_name="backdoor.propensity_score_matching"
    )
    print(causal_estimate)

    The result — a data-validated causal impact — can then be summarized by the LLM:

    cause_prompt = f"""
    We found that improving On_Time_Delivery by 10% increases 
    CSAT by {round(causal_estimate.value*10,2)}%.
    Explain why this relationship is causal and what assumptions 
    it depends on.
    """

    "Because we controlled for stockouts and support interactions, the effect of delivery timeliness on satisfaction is independent of other confounders. This suggests that improving logistics speed directly enhances customer experience rather than being merely correlated."

    7. Closing the Loop: KPIxpert in Action

    In production, this becomes a closed decision system:

    1. DataXpert (conversational AI layer)

    Ingests data and generates the KPI tree using LLMs

    2. KPIxpert (decision engine)

    Consumes that tree, runs simulations & optimizations, and provides recommendations

    3. Continuous Learning

    Each run updates the KPI registry with new influence weights and action notes

    4. Decision Dashboards

    Show what to do rather than what happened

    Architecture at Scale

    ┌────────────────────────┐
    │   Data Layer           │
    │   Warehouse/Lakehouse  │
    └───────────┬────────────┘
                ↓
    ┌────────────────────────┐
    │   LLM Semantic Layer   │
    │   • Schema Interpreter │
    │   • Intent Understand  │
    │   • KPI Generator      │
    └───────────┬────────────┘
                ↓
    ┌────────────────────────┐
    │   Analytics Layer      │
    │   • Validation Engine  │
    │   • Causal Model       │
    │   • Optimizer          │
    └───────────┬────────────┘
                ↓
    ┌────────────────────────┐
    │   Experience Layer     │
    │   • DataXpert Chat UI  │
    │   • KPIxpert Dashboard │
    └────────────────────────┘

    8. Why This Matters for Enterprise AI Adoption

    Capability Traditional BI LLM + KPIxpert Approach
    KPI Definition Manual, static LLM-generated from intent
    KPI Validation Human judgment Statistical + causal tests
    Scenario Planning Manual Excel models Automated simulation
    Decision Optimization Rare Built-in constraint solver
    Narrative Insight Analyst slides AI-generated summaries
    Governance Spreadsheet-based AI-authored registry

    Finarb's consult-to-operate model ensures each client starts from data discovery, runs through proof-of-concept validation, and scales into a governed, automated decision system. Our teams embed domain SMEs so the LLM reasoning stays business-relevant and regulation-compliant.

    9. The Future of KPI Intelligence

    As LLMs grow to multimodal and context-aware models (integrating text, time-series, images, and voice):

    Cross-Domain Simulation

    KPIxpert will simulate cross-domain scenarios — for example, how equipment downtime (manufacturing) impacts fulfillment (retail) and patient outcomes (healthcare)

    Autonomous Agents

    Will run continuous "what-if patrols," flagging opportunities before humans notice

    Self-Maintaining Governance

    KPI governance will become self-maintaining, with the AI suggesting new metrics as business evolves

    Conclusion

    With LLM-powered KPI trees, organizations move from measurement to management. With KPIxpert, they move further — from management to autonomous optimization.

    Together, they form an AI-native management stack:

    Data → KPI → Causality → Decision → Action → Learning

    That's how modern enterprises, guided by platforms like DataXpert and KPIxpert, evolve from hindsight dashboards to foresight engines — driven by data, powered by AI, and orchestrated by language.

    Key Takeaways

    • • Transform KPI trees into simulation and optimization layers
    • • Use LLMs to classify KPIs as controllable vs. dependent variables
    • • Run what-if scenarios with validated influence weights
    • • Optimize decisions under constraints using mathematical solvers
    • • Generate executive summaries with LLM-powered narratives
    • • Integrate causal reasoning for high-stakes domains
    • • Build autonomous decision engines that evolve with your business
    F

    Finarb Analytics Consulting

    Creating Impact Through Data & AI

    Finarb Analytics Consulting pioneers enterprise AI architectures that transform insights into autonomous decision systems, helping organizations evolve from reactive dashboards to proactive intelligence engines.

    KPI Trees
    LLM
    Decision Engines
    Optimization
    Causal Reasoning
    DataXpert
    KPIxpert

    Share this article

    0 likes