From Presence to Performance · Part Two
Every number, and where it comes from
Read this before the session, not during it. Nothing on this page is typed in — it is computed from the same module the projector reads, so a figure that moves here has moved everywhere.
If you are asked
- Are you short of desks?
- No. 351 spare at peak. §1
- Then why give a floor back?
- Floor 4 is 22% used on an average day and the only one with a break. §1
- Doesn’t releasing it make you short?
- Yes, by 19. That is the decision. §3
- Where does the 90% come from?
- 1,332 of 1,480. A smaller denominator, not a third move. §3
- Your deck says 42% average, but the week averages 56%.
- A day runs 0.75 of its own peak. §2
- 11.6 minus 9.2 is 2.4, not 2.3.
- Correct — the deck’s after-figure is wrong. It is $9.3 M. §5
- What if the nineteen don’t close?
- Floor 5’s reserve is released. The deck says so. §6
- Isn’t a quarter’s delay harmless?
- No. Notice by 30 Nov, break May 2027 — no slack. §6
- 1,499 minus 776 — that’s 723 people without a desk.
- No. It is the one subtraction that does not work. §1
The building at its fullest
Nobody is short today. The building seats 1,850 and the busiest day uses 1,499 — 351 desks spare.
The dashed line is Wednesday, drawn in the same desks the floors are. It reaches into Floor 4, which is the floor we are proposing to give away. That is the case in one mark.
The percentages are a reading of use. They answer the other question — which floor to hand back — and Floor 4 at 22% is the emptiest.
The subtraction that does not work
1,499 − 776 = 723 people without a desk
This was on a presenter card until 31 August. It is false twice over.
One. 1,499 is 81% of 1,850. It is already an occupancy rate, so it cannot also be demand exceeding capacity.
Two. The two figures count different days. 776 is who is in on an ordinary day; 1,499 is what the busiest day asks for. Subtracting one from the other crosses the nouns, so the answer means nothing. The one subtraction the case needs has both terms on the busiest day: 1,480 desks kept against 1,499 wanted, which is nineteen.
The building seats 1,850. A floor at 47% has 212 empty desks, and they are still desks.
The numbers behind it
| Floor | Desks | Average day | People in | What sits on it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Floor 5 | 300 | 44% | 132 | Labs, storage, server room — fixed |
| Floor 4 | 370 | 22% | 81 | Desking only — hand back at the break |
| Floor 3 | 400 | 47% | 188 | Absorbs the Floor 4 teams |
| Floor 2 | 400 | 49% | 196 | Six large rooms become eighteen small |
| Floor 1 | 380 | 47% | 179 | Client floor, reception, cafe |
| Desks installed | 1,850 | — | — | What the building seats |
| People in on an average day | — | — | 776 | A reading of use. Not a capacity, and never subtracted from one |
| Desks wanted | — | 81.0% | 1,499 | What the busiest day asks for |
The week, against the desks we would keep
Against the 1,480 desks we would keep, two days sit on the ceiling — Tuesday and Wednesday — while Friday has 1,128 spare. Wednesday is 19 over. That is the entire margin the case turns on, and moving one anchor day is what closes it.
If anyone asks why the deck reports a 42% average when this week averages 56%, the answer is one derived ratio — the working is under the numbers below.
The numbers behind it, at peak and on average
The published average and the published week disagreed until one ratio reconciled them: a day averages 0.75 of its own peak. Derived, not chosen — it is the only value that recovers 777 desks, which is the 42% the deck reports. No decision in the corrected chain depends on it; it exists to answer the question.
| Day | Peak | Desks | Average | Desks | Against 1,480 kept |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mon | 47% | 870 | 35% | 653 | 610 spare |
| Tue | 78% | 1,443 | 59% | 1,082 | 37 spare |
| Wed | 81% | 1,499 | 61% | 1,124 | 19 short |
| Thu | 55% | 1,018 | 41% | 764 | 462 spare |
| Fri | 19% | 352 | 14% | 264 | 1128 spare |
| Mean | 56% | — | 42.0% | 777 | the deck’s own 42% |
Two moves, and the nineteen desks between them
The same building, three times. Watch the dashed line: today it sits inside Floor 4, then the floor beneath it disappears and it lifts above the roof by 19 desks.
Two moves, not three. Handing back the floor is what creates the problem — 19 desks — and re-timing one anchor day is what solves it. The 81% → 90% in the table below is not a third decision: it is 1,332 of 1,480, the same load in a smaller building.
The rooms, before and after
Six of the fourteen large rooms become eighteen small ones. Every block below is a room the deck counts — the arrangement is schematic, the counts are not.
Nothing here changes how many people can sit down. It changes whether the 1,180 of 3,900 helpdesk tickets about finding somewhere to take a call have anywhere to go — against six enclosed rooms for every 370 desks today.
How it would actually happen
Slide 22's own dates. Notice must be served by 30 November and the break is May 2027 — which is exactly the six months the lease requires, with none to spare.
- Sep 2026 Survey and engagement
Moves agreed with neighbourhood leads and phased before notice - Nov 2026 Committee approval, notice served
Decision by 30 November. Six months notice, and the break is May 2027 — no slack - Jan–Apr 2027 Consolidation works
Enclosed rooms delivered before consolidation, not after - Q1 2027 Cost per occupied seat reported monthly
Adopted as the portfolio measure - May 2027 Floor handback
−4,200 sqm, −370 desks - Nov 2027 Post-completion review
Benefit tested against the ledger
And if the nineteen do not close? The deck has an answer, and nothing in this app carried it until now: “If the re-timed week does not hold the peak for two consecutive months, the Floor 5 reserve is released and the Committee notified.”
What changes, measure by measure
| Measure | Today | After | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Floors in use | 5 | 4 | −1 |
| Desks | 1,850 | 1,480 | −370 |
| Busiest-day demand | 1,499 | 1,332 | re-timed |
| Use of desks we keep | 81% | 90% | +9 pts |
| Cost per occupied seat | 2.4x | 1.9x | −21% |
| Occupancy cost a year | $11.6 M | $9.3 M | −$2.3 M |
| Enclosed small rooms | 30 | 48 | +18 |
One correction to the deck: it prints occupancy cost after as $9.2 M, and 11.6 − 9.2 is 2.4, not the 2.3 the same row claims. Three lines say the saving is right and the after is wrong — Floor 4 is 4,200 of 21,000 sqm, exactly 20%, and 20% of $11.6 M is $2.32 M; the deck’s own gross of $12.7 M is 2.3 × 5.5 years; and the payback is $1.75 M ÷ $2.3 M. So $9.3 M.