PRC WORKFORCE · Illustrative example. Fictitious data.Not a record of any real organisation or person
Professional Reality Check™

Illustrative Cohort Performance Report

Day 90 Cohort Summary
Northgate Industrial Services Ltd · Cohort NIS-01 · Reporting period 14 April 2026 to 13 July 2026
Illustrative example. Every figure below is fictitious and exists to show the format of the report, not to indicate expected results. PRC does not publish performance claims ahead of independent cohort data.

Cohort at a glance

248
Seats occupied
this cohort
176
Participants completing
to Day 90
71%
Completion rate
Day 1 to Day 90
+1.8
Cohort PRC Index movement
5.4 to 7.2

PRC Index movement, all seven measures

MeasureDay 1Day 90Movement
Output quality5.87.6
+1.8
Decision confidence5.47.4
+2.0
Focus and concentration5.17.2
+2.1
Presence in meetings6.07.5
+1.5
Energy management4.96.9
+2.0
Reset between demands4.76.5
+1.8
Perceived operational capacity5.67.2
+1.6
Cohort average5.47.2
+1.8

Method Self-reported, 1 to 10, captured at Days 1, 30, 60 and 90. Cohort means across completing participants. The Index is a self-report instrument and is not independently validated.

Small-group suppression Where any reporting segment contains fewer than 10 completing participants, that segment is withheld and rolled into the cohort total. No names. No individual scores. No department breakdown below the threshold.

PRC Workforce · Illustrative example. Fictitious data.Page 1 of 2
PRC WORKFORCE · Illustrative example. Fictitious data.Cohort NIS-01 · Day 90 Summary

Notes on modelling and comparison

Financial modelling PRC does not convert Index movement into a claimed financial return. Any return figure an organisation wishes to model should use its own salary bands and its own assumptions about capacity. The reference calculation used publicly by PRC, one employee on £70,000 operating at 70% capacity for six months representing roughly £10,500 in lost output, is illustrative and is not a measured outcome of this or any cohort.

Provision comparison Where an EAP comparison is shown, the utilisation figures are sector averages published by the UK Employee Assistance Professionals Association. Utilisation varies materially by sector and organisation size. This comparison is offered as a reference point, not as a like-for-like performance claim, because the two provisions do different jobs for different parts of a workforce.

Baseline Read comparison If your organisation ran a Workforce Baseline Read before this cohort, those figures are not directly comparable with the ones above, and are never placed in the same table. The Baseline Read asks a whole workforce about the previous two weeks, once. The protocol asks a participant to score the day they are on, four times across ninety days. They are deliberately different instruments doing different jobs. A Baseline Read is compared with a later Baseline Read. A Day 1 score is compared with a Day 90 score.

Pricing

PRC is in validation. No price is published while the funded pilots run, and none will be until there is completed outcome data to set it against. Three organisations can run the full ninety days at no cost, funded by PRC. There is nothing to buy at this stage.

Reminder This document is an illustrative template. The figures are fictitious. PRC Workforce publishes completion and aggregate movement from real cohorts only once those cohorts have completed, and states plainly that the PRC Index is a self-report instrument that has not been independently validated.

PRC Workforce · Illustrative example. Fictitious data.Page 2 of 2