System × physical
Locates where recorded balance and physical count stopped representing the same reality.
Inventory integrity
Stock Integrity
Find where recorded inventory stopped matching physical reality, test what could actually have caused the divergence, and decide where to act first — without turning suspicion into fact.
01 / In 20 seconds
Inventory divergence is the symptom. The product looks for the event that created the loss.
Stock Integrity confronts what the system says, what physically exists and what happened between one state and the next. The output is not only a mismatch: it is a decision about where to investigate, correct or stop recurrence.
Events and exceptions
Organizes movements, rules, timing, owners and exceptions into a verifiable sequence.
Possible causes
Separates causes supported by evidence from explanations that are merely plausible or still unproven.
Where to act first
Orders anomalies by impact, strength of evidence and actual ability to intervene.
02 / Before and after
Inventory should not end with an adjustment. It should end with operational learning.
Without Stock Integrity
- The count shows a divergence.
- The balance is adjusted.
- Spreadsheets and messages try to explain what happened.
- A cause is assumed.
- The same problem may return in the next cycle.
With Stock Integrity
- Divergence becomes an investigable event.
- The timeline is reconstructed.
- Competing causes are challenged against evidence.
- The decision shows what to correct, prove or block.
- Recurrence is checked after intervention.
When evidence cannot close the cause, the system records the gap. It does not complete the story for convenience.
03 / What goes in
The product needs to bring together parts of the operation that normally live apart.
Inputs vary by company. The core requirement is enough state and event evidence to reconstruct what happened.
System inventoryBalance, SKU, unit, location and reference date from ERP, WMS or an equivalent export.
Physical countInventories, cycle counts, audits and other evidence of the observed physical state.
MovementsReceipts, issues, transfers, returns, adjustments and other events that change balance.
Process rulesHow the operation should record, approve, transfer, issue or correct movements.
Time and responsibilityTimestamps, users, units, owners and operational sequence when available.
Known exceptionsManual processes, contingencies, integration failures and situations outside standard flow.
Input can start as spreadsheets, exports or integrations depending on the environment. The product does not require replacing ERP or WMS to begin.
04 / What Oruvo does
The value is in reconstructing the causal path before recommending action.
Observed state
Compares physical and system inventory without assuming either one is automatically correct.
Event timeline
Organizes movements, rules, exceptions and owners that may explain the change.
Competing causes
Tests which explanations survive the evidence and which must be discarded or kept open.
Next move
Defines where to investigate, correct, block or measure first according to consequence and evidence.
05 / What you receive
The deliverable must change a decision, not merely produce a dashboard.
Prioritized divergence map
Which mismatches deserve attention first and why.
Event trail by anomaly
The operational sequence that strengthens or weakens each explanation.
Cause classification
What is proven, supported, still hypothetical or lacks sufficient evidence.
Intervention plan
Actions with priority, dependencies and verification criteria.
Exception register
Which process deviations must be treated as part of operational reality.
Recurrence verification
Whether intervention changed the pattern or only corrected that moment's balance.
06 / Decision example
How the analysis changes what the company does next.
HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE — NO CLIENT DATA
The ERP shows one balance and the physical count another. The conventional response is to adjust the number and investigate later. Stock Integrity reconstructs receipts, transfers, issues, timing, rules and available exceptions. Some causes stop being compatible with the events; others remain possible; a documentation gap may prevent a conclusion.
The decision stops being “fix inventory” or “someone made a mistake”. It becomes: which process should be blocked or corrected, which evidence is still missing and what must be measured to know whether the intervention worked.
07 / Where outcome appears
The gain is not finding a divergence. It is stopping it from continuing to consume margin, capital and attention.
Less recurring lossTargets mechanisms that repeat divergence instead of only adjusting inventory afterwards.
More reliable capitalReduces uncertainty about what is actually available to sell, produce or move.
Less reworkFocuses investigation on anomalies with enough evidence and consequence to justify action.
Better auditabilityKeeps event, hypothesis, evidence, decision and verification connected.
Operational prioritySeparates inventory noise from leakage that deserves immediate intervention.
Process learningTurns exceptions and recurrence into memory for future decisions.
This page does not promise a savings percentage. Impact depends on actual exposure, data quality and the operation's ability to intervene.
08 / How to start
Start small enough to prove cause and consequence.
Commercial entry
Diagnosis → pilot → recurring use
- Select an operation, unit, item family or slice with material divergence.
- Gather inventory states, events and rules sufficient to reconstruct the period.
- Produce the first divergence map and select hypotheses worth testing.
- Run a controlled intervention and verify recurrence before expanding scope.
Limits that remain
- Divergence does not prove fraud.
- Temporal correlation does not automatically become cause.
- A hypothesis is not published as fact without sufficient evidence.
- When data cannot support a conclusion, the gap remains explicit.
- Current commercial path: paid diagnosis, pilot and license according to access and operational reality.