Ten-Second Coherence Test - Where Does Your Bank Lose the Most Time Between Intent and Live Transaction
- Sunil Dutt Jha
- Nov 11
- 3 min read
Ten-Second Coherence Test — Banking Edition
Every bank has plans, policies, and tech — yet execution still slips. The question isn’t what failed, but which gate did.
ICMG Enterprise Anatomy™ maps these gates from P1 (Strategy) to P6 (Operations).
Let’s see where your enterprise loses flow.
Diagnostics Question:
Where does your bank lose the most time between intent and live transaction?
P1 — Strategy
P2 — Process
P3 — Systems / Logic
P4 — Component Specs
P5 — Implementation Tasks
P6 — Operations
Vote, where it showed up last month.
Executive Context (P1–P2)
Every bank claims to have a “digital transformation” strategy. Yet approval queues lengthen, loan releases lag, and credit product rollouts still collide with compliance.
The issue isn’t in technology—it’s in coherence (alignment). Somewhere between P1 (Strategy) and P2 (Process), intent fractures before systems even touch it.
Banks design strategies as if they were slides; processes as if they were workflows; and systems as if they were tools.
Enterprise Anatomy™ reveals these as six connected gates—Strategy, Process, Logic, Specification, Implementation, Operations—each dependent on the previous.
Hidden Anatomy (P3)
Across dozens of retail and corporate banking diagnostics, the biggest fracture appears at P3 (Systems / Logic). Rules written for compliance contradict credit or pricing logic.
A simple example: credit risk rules embedded in the core banking platform differ from those applied in the loan origination system.
When both call the same dataset, they return different eligibility outcomes.
To executives, it looks like “system delay.”
To anatomy analysts, it’s a logic drift—an enterprise heartbeat out of rhythm.
Component & Implementation (P4–P5)
P4 (Component Specs): Most banks still define “system specs” as IT documents, not enterprise definitions. One team writes API schemas, another defines data tables, and a third manages channel configurations.
None represent the same business rule.
P5 (Implementation Tasks): The result—developers deliver exactly what’s specified, but not what’s required. A correct deployment can still implement the wrong anatomy.
When tested, 70 % of issues diagnosed as “IT bugs” actually trace back to mis-specified business logic at P4.
Operations & Impact (P6)
Operations teams keep patching these differences manually—adjusting workflows, overriding transactions, or escalating exceptions.Every manual fix introduces a new layer of shadow governance. Over time, the enterprise starts operating around itself.
The measurable impact:
Average approval time for mid-ticket loans ↑
Operational risk exceptions ↑
Rule maintenance effort ↑ per quarter
The pattern is universal: the bank works harder, not smarter, because its internal anatomy drifts out of coherence.
Diagnostic Map
Perspective | Anatomy Meaning | Common Failure in Banking | Observable Symptom |
P1 – Strategy | Define business direction and value outcomes | Product or credit strategy detached from real channel flow | Conflicting KPIs between retail and digital heads |
P2 – Process | Sequence of business activities | Approval, risk, compliance processes running in silos | Manual escalations, redundant approvals |
P3 – Systems / Logic | Rule, data, and channel logic | Different eligibility or pricing logic in LOS vs Core | Rework, re-evaluation, customer churn |
P4 – Component Specs | APIs, datasets, screens, configurations | Partial or outdated API specs | Frequent “minor change” releases |
P5 – Implementation | Human/IT tasks that deploy components | Dev teams follow doc, not intent | “Delivered as specified” but wrong outcome |
P6 – Operations | Daily business and IT operations | Manual corrections to reconcile systems | Rising exception queues, audit flags |
Pattern Recognition — Why the Drift Repeats
Governance by Department, not by Gate: Strategy and Operations report to different silos. No one owns the full P1–P6 chain.
Illusion of Process Maturity: Banks equate mapped processes with coherence. But mapping a broken flow doesn’t fix it.
Fragmented Rule Ownership: Business defines, IT encodes, Risk verifies—each edits a different copy of the same rule.
Reactive IT Fixes: Every incident triggers a patch, never a structural correction.
Governance Implications — The Leadership Drift
Executives see high compliance costs but rarely see the anatomy behind it.
True governance begins when leadership owns gate coherence, not just KPIs.
A Chief Enterprise Architect’s job is to maintain that six-gate spine — ensuring every strategic intent is traceable to every operational signal.
From Diagnosis to Restoration of Coherence (Advisory Path)
Create a P1–P6 × D1–D15 Bank Anatomy Model.
Run Coherence Tests for 3–5 major flows (loan approval, KYC, card issuance, payments).
Apply ICMG X-Ray Protocol to locate cross-gate logic conflicts.
Publish Fast-Track Rating to quantify drift.
Govern via Anatomy, not project silos—one view across business, IT, and risk.
Turning Insight into Action
One Bank. One Anatomy™ | ICMG Enterprise Anatomy™ Diagnostics
