To war-game a budget reforecast before you present it, paste the original annual plan, actuals to date, the draft reforecast, the pipeline and hiring data behind it, the list of planned investments, and your last reforecast with how it turned out. Then instruct Pingpong to rebuild the bridge from the original plan to the new numbers and challenge every assumption that carries the second half: conversion rates, hiring pace, launch dates, and one-time items. Ask which investments the new numbers can still afford, how each part of the gap should be explained to the board, and what directors will ask about whether this forecast deserves more trust than the last one.
This page is for chief executives and chief financial officers rebuilding the full-year picture after actuals have moved away from plan. It covers revenue, spending, hiring, and investments together. Executive starting points live under Pingpong for executives.
Sort the gap before you explain it
Every line in the bridge from plan to reforecast belongs in one of four groups:
- Volume. Fewer deals, smaller deals, or more churn than planned.
- Timing. Revenue or costs that moved to a later quarter but still arrive.
- One-time. Events unlikely to repeat, such as a settlement or a large prepayment.
- Self-inflicted. A delayed launch, a missed hire, or a decision that did not work.
Directors usually accept a reforecast that names its self-inflicted lines. They lose trust when every miss is described as market conditions.
Keep, pause, or stop
For each planned investment, the reforecast should say which of the three it gets and why. Pausing has a cost too: a team waiting for funding, a vendor commitment, a customer promise. The plan should list those costs next to the savings.
A worked example
This example is illustrative and does not describe a customer. A 350-person security software company planned $80 million in revenue this year. First-half revenue came in at $34 million against a plan of $38 million. The draft reforecast puts the full year at $74 million and says the second half will recover on a strong pipeline.
The chief financial officer pastes the plan, monthly actuals, the draft, pipeline by stage with conversion history, the hiring tracker, the investment list, and last year's mid-year reforecast with its result.
A useful pass finds that the draft applies the planned conversion rate of 28% to second-half pipeline, while first-half conversion ran at 22%. At the actual rate, full-year revenue lands nearer $71 million. The draft attributes the whole shortfall to slower buying, but about $2 million came from a product launch that slipped a quarter.
On spending, the company filled 18 of 45 planned roles in the first half, and the draft keeps the full hiring budget for the second half. That underspend made the first half look better than it was. A $3 million expansion of European hosting is still funded, although the European deals it supports have moved into next year. Last year's mid-year reforecast also predicted a second-half recovery and missed by 6%.
The chief financial officer rebuilds the reforecast. The base case is $71 million, with a range from $69 million to $73 million, using first-half conversion. The bridge shows the four groups, and the launch delay appears as its own line. Second-half hiring drops to 25 roles, ranked by priority. The European hosting work is paused for two quarters, with the vendor penalty listed. One marketing program is stopped outright. The deck opens with last year's forecast accuracy and the method change made since, and the board will receive a short monthly update against the new numbers.
A request you can copy
Below are our original annual plan, actuals to date, our draft reforecast, the pipeline and hiring data behind it, our planned investments, and our last reforecast with its result. Rebuild the bridge from plan to reforecast and sort each line into volume, timing, one-time, or self-inflicted. Challenge every second-half assumption against first-half actuals. Recommend keep, pause, or stop for each investment, with the cost of pausing. List the questions our board will ask about whether this forecast is more reliable than the last one.
To carry the new numbers into the cash section of the deck, see war-game a cash runway brief before the number reaches the board.
How Pingpong runs the war-game
The web review app sends your request through several models in order. Each later model receives the original request and every earlier answer, with instructions to assess the work so far. Recalculate every figure in your own model before it reaches a slide. For the steps inside the app, see running your first review.
What a model can't war-game
A model does not know which deals your sales leaders privately doubt, which hires are close to accepting, or how the market will move next quarter. Your finance team owns the numbers, and your leaders own the choices about what to keep funding.
When the reforecast goes to the board, see war-game a decision before the board meeting. More guides live under work decisions before you commit.