For CFOs, Chief Transformation Officers, private equity operating partners and audit committee chairs who must prove that change is delivering real financial value.

Fund and independently verify three controls — a frozen baseline, an evidence register reconciled to the ledger, and execution support inside the workstreams — and transformation programmes bank the value they commit. Skip any one, and the 2026 research and RCK’s own operating evidence show the same gap recur between what is committed and what reaches the ledger. Three findings, one for each control, show why.

First, the baseline control is missing. In Deloitte’s survey of 500 senior leaders (fieldwork April 2026), 67% expect to meet or exceed their overall targets this year, yet only 14% fully captured the value targeted by their highest-priority initiative last year, and only 24% price leakage into the target at all. Without a frozen, CFO-signed baseline, a committed figure and a delivered one are never measured against the same yardstick.

Second, the evidence control is missing. In Alvarez & Marsal’s survey of 200 European private equity investors and portfolio executives (fieldwork February 2026), 65% achieved less than half the value targeted in plans made over the past two years, and 55% of organisations pursuing AI-enabled programmes say their own tracking technology cannot fully support them (Deloitte). Without a register that reconciles to the ledger every month, a claimed saving and a banked one look identical until an exit or an audit tells them apart.

Third, execution capacity is missing. Bain reports longer holds and less multiple expansion, so a miss now costs more. Our own operating evidence — one programme (n=1), where the client verified a $128M in-year cost reduction (section 3) — shows that funding people to work inside the workstreams, not only report on them, is what moves a plan from forecast to ledger.

RCK’s reading, not a finding of any cited study, is that these three controls are jointly necessary: closing one without the others still leaves the gap open. We call this pattern committed, not banked: value that is committed in the plan but never independently verified onto the ledger. It is a hypothesis, and section 2 states what would disprove it: if programmes that fund and independently verify all three controls show the same gap between reported and banked value as programmes that do not, on the same definitions, we are wrong. Nobody we cite has run that comparison, and neither, beyond one programme, have we.

Read the full repor here: