Decompose financial variances into drivers with narrative explanations and waterfall analysis. Use when analyzing budget vs. actual, period-over-period changes, revenue or expense variances, or preparing variance commentary for leadership.
Decomposes financial variances into their underlying drivers and produces narrative explanations and waterfall analysis. It is intended for analyzing budget versus actual, period-over-period changes, revenue or expense variances, and for preparing variance commentary for leadership. The material opens with an explicit disclaimer that it assists with variance analysis workflows but does not provide financial advice, and that analyses should be reviewed by qualified financial professionals before use in reporting.
Several decomposition techniques are provided with formulas and worked examples. Price/volume decomposition splits a variance into volume and price effects (with a three-way version that separates a mix effect), illustrated by a revenue example where +28,000 favorable breaks into a +50,000 volume effect and a -22,000 price effect. Rate/mix decomposition handles blended rates across segments with different unit economics, shown with a gross-margin example. Headcount/compensation decomposition separates headcount, rate, mix, timing, and attrition effects, and spend-category decomposition groups operating expense variances into headcount-driven, volume-driven, discretionary, contractual/fixed, one-time, and timing/phasing buckets. Each technique includes a verification check that the components reconcile back to the total variance.
The skill also defines materiality thresholds and investigation triggers, with a recommended framework table giving percentage thresholds by comparison type (for example 10% for actual vs budget, 15% vs prior period, 5% vs forecast, 20% sequential) and an investigation priority order. It specifies a structure for variance narratives (line item, favorable/unfavorable amount and percentage, driver, outlook, action), a quality checklist requiring narratives to be specific, quantified, causal, forward-looking, actionable, and concise, and a list of anti-patterns such as circular or vague explanations. Finally it describes waterfall (bridge) chart methodology, including a data structure, a text-based waterfall format for when no charting tool is available, and a bridge reconciliation table that verifies the starting value plus all drivers equals the ending value.
No. It explicitly states it assists with variance analysis workflows but does not provide financial advice, and that all analyses should be reviewed by qualified financial professionals before use in reporting.
Total variance equals actual minus budget (or prior). The volume effect is (actual volume minus budget volume) times budget price, and the price effect is (actual price minus budget price) times actual volume; a three-way version separates a mix effect as the interaction term.
The recommended framework uses 10% for actual vs budget, 15% vs prior period, 5% vs forecast, and 20% for sequential month-over-month, with dollar thresholds set per organization (commonly 0.5%-1% of revenue).
Each narrative should state the line item, the favorable/unfavorable dollar and percentage variance, the primary driver, an outlook (one-time, continuing, improving, or deteriorating), and a recommended action. It should be specific, quantified, causal, forward-looking, actionable, and concise.
Use the text-based waterfall format, listing the starting value, each signed driver, and the ending value, complemented by a bridge reconciliation table. The verification check is that the starting value plus the sum of all drivers equals the ending value.
Quick Setup:
.claude/skills/Repository
anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins