Your bottom 200 SKUs cost more
than they earn. AGI proves it.
Upload distributor claims, SKU data, or channel P&L reports. Get claim dispute analysis, portfolio rationalization signals, and channel margin intelligence in under 30 seconds.
₹7–9L
Distributor Claim Recovery
Within 30 days audit
₹80L/yr
SKU Rationalization Saving
Inventory write-off reduction
4% → 13%
MT Margin Recovery
After cost structure fix
31%FTE
Planning Capacity Freed
From bottom SKU elimination
Real Pain → AI Solves It
Your team faces these every week.
OpsOracle names them and fixes them.
Actual AI output from real FMCG and consumer goods data. Upload your report and get this analysis in under 30 seconds.
The Pain
We have ₹42L in distributor promotional claims pending. 28% are disputed. Our trade marketing team says distributors are inflating claims but we can't prove it without auditing 800 invoices.
Raw data signal
Total claims pending: ₹42L | Disputed: ₹11.76L (28%) | Avg claim age: 67 days | Distributor A: ₹8.2L claimed, 41% disputed | Distributor B: ₹3.1L, 4% disputed | Distributor C: ₹6.4L, 38% disputed | Primary schemes: Retailer discount 58%, Display allowance 28%, Volume bonus 14%
OpsOracle AI Output
Distributor A (41% dispute rate) and C (38%) vs B (4%) reveals this is not a system problem — it is a distributor behavior problem. A and C are pattern disputing, not randomly disputing. At ₹14.6L in contested claims from just 2 distributors, the scheme design is being gamed. Display allowance (28% of claims) has the highest dispute rate because verification is manual and subjective — photos of displays are the easiest to inflate.
[THIS WEEK] Action
Immediate: freeze new scheme disbursements to Distributors A and C pending claim audit on their top 20 invoices (takes 2 days, covers 60% of their claim value). Move display allowance claims to photo-verification-mandatory — GPS-tagged photo within 48 hours of claim. For new schemes: introduce geo-coded verification for all display claims above ₹25K.
Expected impact: Recover ₹7–9L of the ₹11.76L disputed claims within 30 days. Reduce future dispute rate from 28% to under 8% with photo verification. Save 40 hours/month of trade marketing audit time.
The Pain
We have 847 SKUs. Bottom 200 generate only 3% of revenue but our supply chain team says managing them takes 31% of our planning effort. CFO wants to rationalize but brand team says every SKU has a purpose.
Raw data signal
Total SKUs: 847 | Top 100 SKUs revenue: 71% | Bottom 200 SKUs revenue: 3% | Bottom 200 supply chain cost share: 31% | Min order quantity issues: 140 of 200 have MOQ > demand | Retailer stocking rate bottom 200: avg 12% | Shelf space cost: ₹180/sqft/month | Top 100 shelf coverage: 94%
OpsOracle AI Output
Bottom 200 SKUs: 3% revenue, 31% supply chain cost. Shelf stocking rate of 12% means 88% of retailers don't even carry them. MOQ problems on 140 of 200 SKUs mean you are over-producing and writing off inventory. These are not 'niche' products with a purpose — they are complexity tax disguised as brand portfolio. The brand team's argument is not revenue-supported.
[THIS WEEK] Action
Phase 1 (30 days): discontinue 80 SKUs with 0% shelf coverage and < ₹2L annual revenue. No market impact — nobody stocks them. Phase 2 (90 days): consolidate 60 SKUs with overlapping positioning into 20 hero variants. Phase 3: use freed planning capacity to drive depth-of-distribution on top 100 SKUs from 94% to 99% shelf coverage.
Expected impact: Free 31% of supply chain planning capacity = 2 FTE redirected to growth. Reduce inventory write-offs by ₹60–80L/year. Top 100 SKU distribution improvement from 94% to 99% = ₹2.4Cr revenue uplift at current velocities.
The Pain
Our Modern Trade channel is growing 23% but gross margin is 4%. General Trade is flat but margin is 18%. CFO wants us to slow MT growth but sales team says MT is the future.
Raw data signal
MT revenue: ₹4.2Cr (23% growth) | MT gross margin: 4% | GT revenue: ₹11.8Cr (2% growth) | GT gross margin: 18% | MT trade spend: 22% of MT revenue | MT listing fees paid: ₹38L | GT trade spend: 6% of revenue | MT SKU count: 340 (including 180 MT-exclusives) | MT exclusives contribution: 8% of MT revenue
OpsOracle AI Output
MT gross margin of 4% is not MT's structural problem — it is caused by: (1) ₹38L in listing fees amortized over insufficient MT volume (adds ~5% cost), (2) 180 MT-exclusive SKUs generating only 8% of MT revenue (30% of SKUs earning 8% = complexity at full freight cost), (3) 22% trade spend vs GT's 6%. The CFO is right that MT margin is broken, but stopping MT growth is wrong — fixing the MT cost structure is the answer.
[THIS WEEK] Action
Delist 120 of 180 MT-exclusive SKUs that contribute < ₹10L each annually. This frees listing-fee budget. Reduce MT SKU count from 340 to 220 — MT chains prefer fewer, faster SKUs. Renegotiate listing fees on a per-SKU revenue-performance basis. Target: reduce MT trade spend from 22% to 14% by eliminating no-ROI listings.
Expected impact: MT margin recovers from 4% to 11–13% within 2 quarters. MT absolute profit increases even with slower SKU growth. GT's 18% margin on ₹11.8Cr becomes the anchor that funds MT investment properly.
14-day Pro trial · No credit card · Results in 30 seconds
Upload FMCG data — get trade intelligence in 30 seconds
AGI Pain Solver
Powered by OpsOracle AI · Streaming action plan
Ask the FMCG AGI anything
Distributor claim disputes, SKU rationalization norms, MT vs GT margin benchmarks, trade scheme design — instant AI answers
AGI Chat Agent
Multi-turn · tool access · real data