RGMAcademy
How can we help?
Free tool · no login required

Cross-Lever Impact Simulator

Pull five levers at once on a single P&L: price, premium mix, pack count, promo depth and Volume Sold on Deal (VSOD). The Flywheel Coordination Band and the Cross-Lever Sequencing Scorecard then show whether the levers in your plan strengthen each other or work against each other. The same capstone interactive model the full RGM Academy course uses for Integrated RGM Lesson 6, no sign-in, no paywall.

Updated 28 April 2026Extracted from the Integrated RGM module, lesson 6: Cross-Lever Optimization
Loading calculator...
Guided walkthrough

Explore the tool, from setup to common mistakes

Five short sections explain the scenario, what each control does, how to read the output, and the mistakes to avoid. Open whichever helps. The tool above works without them.

5.1Scenario setup

The starting SKU, market, and assumptions the model makes.

You are the Commercial Director at a mainstream FMCG biscuit manufacturer running the integrated annual plan for CrunchField Biscuits Portfolio. Base price $4.99, 1.0M units annual volume, cost of goods sold (COGS) $2.40 a unit, trade terms 22% of gross, and current promo depth 15% running on 30% of volume. Premium stock‑keeping units (SKUs) make up 25% of the mix, priced at 1.45x the base price and costing 1.15x the base COGS. Price elasticity is set at -1.8. That is this simulator's assumption for one portfolio, so treat it as a planning input and replace it with your own category's measured figure when you have one.

The baseline lands at $1.59M gross profit at 39.0% gross margin on $4.08M net revenue. Now five teams bring five different proposals. Pricing wants +5% list, and the Price Pack Architecture (PPA) team wants 35% premium mix. Trade Marketing wants 30% promo depth running on 45% of volume, Range Management wants to add 3 SKUs (packs to 8), and Finance wants the integrated plan to clear +10% gross profit. They cannot all get what they want. The simulator shows which combinations add up and which cancel out, before the integrated plan goes to the operating committee.

Your objective

Use the simulator to find settings for all 5 levers that lift gross profit by at least 10% versus baseline, while the Flywheel Coordination Band stays at Aligned or Spinning, the Sequencing Scorecard stays at A or B, and no Reference Price Erosion warning appears. Then run the conflict plan to see, in dollars, what a 5% price rise paired with deep promotions does to gross profit.

Key assumptions

  • The simulator models a single portfolio at a single category position in isolation. It leaves out competitor responses and cross‑portfolio cannibalization, and it treats every sale as going through one blended channel. Cross‑portfolio effects sit in PPA Lesson 5 Pack‑Price Matrix; competitive response sits in Pricing Lesson 9 War Gaming.

  • Price elasticity is fixed at -1.8 across all 5 sliders. Premium and mainstream tiers share the same elasticity in this model (a deliberate simplification). Real portfolios often show different price sensitivity by tier, so if your own tier elasticities differ sharply, read the gross profit numbers here as a direction rather than a forecast.

  • Reference‑price erosion is modeled at -2% volume per 10pp of excess depth above 20%. Both the 20% line and the 2% magnitude are this simulator's own settings, not measured findings, and your own category may react harder or more gently to deep discounts. The warning fires whenever depth crosses 20%.

  • Trade terms are fixed at 22% of gross revenue. The simulator has no trade‑terms slider, because this lesson covers the 5 levers a commercial team can move quickly. Reworking trade terms is a separate yearly cycle, modeled in the Manufacturer P&L Sensitivity tool (Integrated RGM Lesson 1).

  • Price is a change from the base price; the other 4 sliders are the settings themselves. Premium Mix 35 means 35% of volume from the premium tier (35% in total, so 10 points above the baseline 25%); Promo Depth 30 means a 30% discount when on promotion. Read the value next to each slider as the setting.

5.2Controls & toggles

Every input the calculator exposes, its range, and what it changes.

ControlRangeDefaultWhat it changes
Base Price Change-15% to +15% in 0.5% steps0% (base $4.99)Your list price change, which reaches the shelf if the retailer passes it on. Drives volume through elasticity (-1.8), so every 1% of price costs 1.8% of volume. On its own, +5% adds about $43K of gross profit (+2.7%) and +10% only about $48K, because the lost volume eats most of each extra point of price. Combined with deep promo, it fights itself: shoppers anchor to the promo price while you raise list.
Premium Mix %5% to 60% in 1% steps25%Share of volume from the premium tier (1.45x the price and 1.15x the COGS of the mainstream pack). A premium pack sells for $2.25 more than a mainstream one and costs only $0.36 more, so on its own a 50% premium mix adds about $323K of gross profit (+20.3%) on unchanged volume. Above 40% combined with depth above 20%, it fails the Premium Mix Coherence rule, because a deep discount tells shoppers the premium positioning is not real.
Pack Count2 to 10 SKUs in steps of 15 SKUsNumber of SKUs in the assortment. Each pack above 5 adds about 1.5% volume through wider distribution and shelf presence; each below 5 subtracts the same. Above 7 packs with premium mix below 30%, the Pack Count Discipline rule fails: many packs with no premium anchor blur what the range stands for.
Promo Depth0% to 40% in 1% steps15% off shelf, funded as 15% of your list priceThe cut the shopper sees on the shelf when on promotion. You fund it as the same percentage of your list price and the retailer carries the rest of the shelf cut, which is how the Integrated RGM lessons count it; the TPO lessons have you fund the whole cut. Above 20%, it triggers reference‑price erosion: volume falls 2% for every 10 percentage points of depth beyond 20%. That rate is a setting of this simulator, not a measured finding. The Reference Price Erosion warning fires above 20%. Once depth goes more than 5 percentage points past the baseline (above 20%), the Reference Price Integrity rule fails if you also raise price.
VSOD (% of volume on deal)5% to 60% in 1% steps30% of volume on dealVolume Sold on Deal (VSOD): the share of volume sold on promotion, counting the units that would have sold at full price anyway. It is a different number from promotional frequency, the share of weeks with a deal on, though promoting more often is the main thing that raises it. A higher VSOD drives a modest volume uplift (multiplier of 1 + (VSOD ratio - 1) * 0.15) but raises total promo cost as a share of your gross sales. Combined with depth: when VSOD times Depth goes above 9%, the plan fails the Promo Intensity Discipline rule. The simulator draws that line itself, at the point where promo spend passes 9% of gross revenue.
5.3Step-by-step exploration

7-step guided exploration of the scenario.

  1. Read the default state to anchor the baseline

    The simulator starts with all 5 sliders at baseline: Price Change 0%, Premium Mix 25%, Pack Count 5, Promo Depth 15%, VSOD 30%. Read the right‑side outputs. Net Revenue $4.08M, Gross Profit $1.59M, Volume 1,000K units, Gross Margin 39.0%, Weighted Avg Price $5.55 (blended across mainstream $4.99 and premium $7.24). Coordination Band reads Aligned by definition (gap = 0% at baseline because the actual coordinated gross profit (GP) equals each single‑lever GP equals baseline). Sequencing Scorecard reads A (5 of 5): all five rules pass at the default values. Reference Price Integrity passes (depth 15 <= 20), Premium Mix Coherence passes (mix 25 <= 40), Promo Intensity passes (0.30 x 0.15 = 0.045 <= 0.09), Pack Count Discipline passes (packs 5 <= 7), Strategic Direction Alignment passes (price 0 >= 0 and mix 25 >= 25). Every plan from here is measured against this $1.59M.

    Expected outcome: Default Net Revenue $4.08M, Gross Profit $1.59M, Gross Margin 39.0%, Volume 1,000K. Flywheel Band Aligned with Coordination Gap at exactly 0% by definition. Scorecard Grade A at baseline (all 5 rules pass). The Scenario Comparison chart shows the baseline and current bars at the same height on all 6 P&L lines, and the P&L Waterfall steps down from $5,551K Gross Revenue to $1,590K Gross Profit. This is your reference state.
  2. Run the synergistic plan and read the Coordination Gap

    Drag Price Change to +3%, Premium Mix to 35%, Promo Depth to 10% (down from baseline 15), VSOD to 25% (down from baseline 30), and leave Pack Count at 5. Every lever points the same way: a moderate price rise on a richer mix, with shallower promotions on less of the volume. Read the right side: Gross Profit rises to about $1.81M, +14.0% versus baseline, all 5 Sequencing Scorecard rules pass for Grade A, and no Reference Price Erosion warning appears. The Coordination Band still reads Aligned, with a gap of about -$20K (-1.3% of baseline gross profit): together, the five moves earn slightly less than they do one at a time, added up. Most of the shortfall comes from the two promotion levers drawing on the same bill. Cutting depth from 15% to 10% saves about $83K while 30% of volume sells on deal, but only about $68K once VSOD is down to 25%, and the single‑lever figure counted the larger saving. The rest is volume: the price rise and the lower VSOD cut volume by about 7.8%, so the mix and promotion gains are earned on fewer packs.

    Expected outcome: Gross Profit about $1.81M, +14.0% versus baseline. Scorecard Grade A (5 of 5 rules pass). Coordination Band Aligned. In the Flywheel Coordination Band panel, Sum of individual reads +$243K, Coordinated actual +$223K and Coordination gap -$20K. The Scenario Comparison chart shows the green Gross Profit bar above the baseline. The plan clears the +10% target with a clean scorecard, and it earns no bonus for coordination: on this portfolio, a well‑built plan lands close to the sum of its single moves.
  3. Spring the cross‑lever conflict trap

    Reset all sliders. Drag Price Change to +5%, Premium Mix to 15% (down from baseline 25), Promo Depth to 30% (well above the 20% line), VSOD to 45%, and leave Pack Count at 5. Now the levers fight each other: a price rise on a cheaper mix, funded by deeper promotions on more of the volume. Read the right side. The Reference Price Erosion warning fires (depth 30% is above 20%), and three Sequencing rules fail (Reference Price Integrity, Promo Intensity Discipline and Strategic Direction Alignment), so the Scorecard drops to D. The Coordination Band reads Broken, because depth of 25% or more on top of a price rise of 3% or more is Broken whatever the gap. Gross Profit falls to about $1.11M, about $484K (30.5%) below baseline.

    Expected outcome: Reference Price Erosion warning fires. Scorecard Grade D (2 of 5 rules pass). Coordination Band Broken. Gross Profit about $1.11M, -30.5% versus baseline, and the Gross Profit bar on the Scenario Comparison chart turns red. Only the price rise looks good on its own (about +$43K). The deeper promotion alone costs about $277K, the cheaper mix about $129K and the higher VSOD about $15K, so the five single moves add up to about -$378K, and together they come to about -$484K: a further $106K (6.7% of baseline gross profit) lost to the levers working against each other. This is the cross‑lever conflict the integrated plan must avoid.
  4. Isolate the premium‑mix path versus the price path

    Reset all sliders. Drag Premium Mix to 50% with everything else at baseline (Price 0, Depth 15, VSOD 30, Packs 5). Read the gross profit change: this is the pure mix path, with no price action. Premium Mix Coherence still passes, because depth stays at 15%, below 20%. Now reset and try the other path: Price Change to +5% with everything else at baseline. Compare the two gross profit changes. In this model the mix shift costs nothing and happens at once. In a real plan, moving shoppers to premium packs takes marketing money and time, which the simulator does not charge for. Price is quicker to take, and here it pays far less, because every point of price costs 1.8% of volume.

    Expected outcome: Premium Mix 50% alone: Gross Profit up about $323K (+20.3%), Coordination Band Aligned (gap exactly 0, because only one lever moved), Scorecard A. Price +5% alone: Gross Profit up about $43K (+2.7%), because the 9% volume loss at -1.8 elasticity eats most of the price gain. On this portfolio the mix path is worth more than seven times the price path before you count what it costs to win the premium shoppers, so that cost is the number to set against the $323K before you choose.
  5. Test the pack‑proliferation‑without‑anchor scenario

    Reset all sliders. Drag Pack Count to 10 (max) and Premium Mix to 15% (a cheaper mix). Leave the other levers at baseline. Read the right side: Volume rises about 7.5% from the extra packs, the Pack Count Discipline rule fails (more than 7 packs with premium mix below 30%), and the Scorecard drops one grade, to B. Gross Profit lands about $19K below baseline: on their own, the 5 extra packs add about $119K and the cheaper mix takes about $129K. Together they lose about $10K more, because the thinner margin of the cheaper mix also applies to the extra packs. A 1.2% dip in gross profit can pass for noise in a plan review. The scorecard tells you what is behind it: 10 SKUs with only 15% premium mix crowd the shelf with similar mainstream packs and leave the range without a premium anchor.

    Expected outcome: Volume rises to about 1,075K units (+7.5%), and Gross Profit falls about $19K (-1.2%). Pack Count Discipline rule fails (red X mark on the scorecard), and the Scorecard drops to B; the other 4 rules still pass. A small move in gross profit can sit on top of a real cross‑lever problem, and the scorecard is what names it.
  6. Find your portfolio's natural coordination leverage point

    Reset all sliders. Now test which kind of plan earns the largest Coordination Gap (the dollars beyond the sum of the single moves). Try price‑led: +3% price, everything else at baseline, and note the Coordination Gap in the Flywheel Coordination Band panel. Try mix‑led: 0% price, 35% premium mix and Depth 10%, everything else at baseline. Try promo‑reduction‑led: Depth 5% and VSOD 20%, everything else at baseline. Compare the three gaps, then compare each one with the gross profit the same play earns.

    Expected outcome: Price‑led gives a gap of exactly $0, because with one lever moved there is nothing for price to interact with. Mix‑led gives a small positive gap, about +$3K (+0.2%), on a gross profit gain of about $216K: a shallower deal saves more when the average pack sold is a pricier one. Promo‑reduction‑led earns about $105K, yet its gap is about -$61K (-3.8%) and the band reads Friction, with every scorecard rule passing. Both of its moves shrink the same promotion bill: the shallower deal saves less once fewer packs sell on deal, and the lower VSOD saves less once each deal is shallower (and it costs 5% of volume too). Cutting depth to 5% on its own earns about $167K. Adding the VSOD cut takes the play down to about $105K, because once the deal is shallow, the 5% of volume the lower VSOD loses is worth more than the promotion money it saves. Two levers that draw on the same pot of money tend to look better added up than they do together, so check the gap before you add their forecasts.
  7. Build the integrated‑plan recommendation for the operating committee

    Reset all sliders. Build the actual integrated annual plan. Set Price Change to +2%, a modest list‑price rise. The simulator assumes the retailer moves its shelf price by the same 2%, though the shelf price stays the retailer's decision. Set Premium Mix to 32%, a shift you could plan to reach in one year with targeted shopper marketing, and Pack Count to 6: one new SKU, added to the premium tier. Then set Promo Depth 12% (3 percentage points shallower than baseline, so deals do not undercut the premium mix) and VSOD 27% (3 percentage points lower than baseline, which frees promo money). Read the right side: Gross Profit rises to about $1.77M, +11.4% versus baseline, the Coordination Band reads Aligned, the Scorecard reads A, and no Reference Price Erosion warning appears. Each lever moves a moderate amount, and together they clear the +10% target with every rule passing. This is a plan you can defend line by line at the operating committee.

    Expected outcome: Gross Profit about $1.77M, +11.4% versus baseline. Coordination Band Aligned (gap about -$5K, -0.3%). Scorecard Grade A. Reference Price Erosion: not triggered. The recommendation to the operating committee: 'Take a moderate 2% list‑price rise, recommend that retailers pass it on in full, and fund a one‑quarter visibility program to hold volume through the rise. Speed up the premium mix shift to 32% with targeted shopper marketing on the premium tier, and add one new premium SKU to take the range to 6. Reduce promo depth from 15% to 12% and VSOD from 30% to 27%, to free promo money and protect the reference price. Integrated gross profit lift versus base: about +$181K, +11.4%, before the cost of the shopper marketing behind the mix shift, with all five cross‑lever rules passing.'
5.4Reading the output

Every KPI, the formula behind it, and how to interpret a positive or negative value.

KPIFormulaHow to read it
Coordination Gap(Coordinated Actual GP delta) minus (Sum of 5 Single‑Lever GP deltas, each computed with one slider changed from baseline)The headline cross‑lever number. A positive gap means the levers reinforce each other (the integrated plan is worth more than the single moves added up). A negative gap means some pair of levers is working against each other. 4 bands, mapped to the gap as a share of baseline gross profit: Flywheel Spinning at or above +1.5%, Aligned -3% to +1.5%, Friction -3% to -10%, Broken below -10% (and Broken whatever the gap when depth is 25% or more with a price rise of 3% or more). It is the first number to read when you want to know whether the integrated plan holds together.
Sequencing Scorecard Grade5 rule checks, each pass = 1 point. 5/5 = A, 4/5 = B, 3/5 = C, <=2/5 = DThe rules‑respected grade. 5 rules check: (1) Reference Price Integrity (depth <= 20% OR no price lift), (2) Premium Mix Coherence (mix <= 40% OR depth <= 20%), (3) Promo Intensity Discipline (depth x VSOD <= 9%), (4) Pack Count Discipline (packs <= 7 OR mix >= 30%), (5) Strategic Direction Alignment (price direction and mix direction aligned). Take only an A or B grade to committee for approval; C is half‑formed; D is incoherent and should not ship as written.
Gross Profit Δ%(Current GP minus Baseline GP) / Baseline GP x 100The yardstick. In this simulator one lever moved on its own runs from about -29% of baseline gross profit (depth at 40%) to about +28% (premium mix at 60%), so a large gross profit number on its own does not prove a good plan. Read it with the Coordination Gap and the Scorecard, which show whether the gain comes from levers working together or from one lever carrying the plan while the others pull against it.
Net Revenue and VolumeNet Revenue = Gross Revenue minus Trade Terms minus Promo Spend. Volume = Base Volume x elasticity response x pack‑multiplier x VSOD uplift x (1 minus reference‑erosion factor)Top‑line and unit reads. Volume is downstream of 4 of the 5 levers (price via elasticity, pack count via assortment, VSOD via uplift, promo depth via reference erosion above 20%). Net Revenue is downstream of all 5 (gross revenue scales with weighted price; trade terms scale with gross; promo spend scales with weighted price x volume x VSOD x depth). A plan that lifts GP via mix may show flat or down volume but rising revenue per unit; a plan that lifts GP via price will show volume drop offset by higher unit revenue.
Gross Margin and Weighted Avg PriceGross Margin % = Gross Profit / Net Revenue. Weighted Avg Price = (premium share x premium price) + (mainstream share x mainstream price)The underlying margin reads. Gross Margin rises with premium mix and price lifts, falls with deeper deals or a higher VSOD. Weighted Avg Price moves with both price and mix sliders. A plan that grows GP without growing margin % is volume‑led (more units at the same margin); a plan that grows both is mix‑led or price‑led. The two together tell you which path the integrated plan took.

Read the right side of the simulator as a stack of three layers. Coordination Band at the top tells you whether the integrated plan is worth more than the sum of its parts (Spinning), about the same (Aligned), or losing value to levers that fight (Friction / Broken). Sequencing Scorecard tells you whether the plan respects the 5 cross‑lever rules; an A or B is what you take to committee. KPI tiles (Net Revenue, Gross Profit, Volume, Gross Margin, Weighted Avg Price) tell you the headline outcomes; the Scenario Comparison chart and P&L Waterfall let you walk every line of the cascade.

The Reference Price Erosion warning is the quickest signal to watch: it fires whenever depth crosses 20%, regardless of the other levers. When it fires together with a positive Price Change, the Reference Price Integrity rule also fails (the rule requires depth <= 20% OR no price lift). The two signals together are the clearest sign that the plan is fighting itself.

Use the simulator before the cross‑functional integrated annual plan goes to the operating committee. Anchor every move proposed to a Coordination Band reading and a Scorecard grade. The committee will challenge your assumptions (the elasticity, whether the mix shift is achievable, how shoppers respond to promotions) far more than the math, and testing those assumptions is what the 5 sliders are for. Run the integrated plan and compare it with the 5 single‑lever results added together, which the simulator shows as Sum of individual; the difference is the Coordination Gap. On this portfolio a well‑built plan lands close to that sum (the synergistic plan is $20K short of it), and a plan whose levers fight lands far below it (the conflict plan is $106K short).

5.55 common mistakes to avoid

Diagnostic patterns that catch the most common misuse of this calculator.

  1. Mistake 1Treating the 5 levers as 5 independent budgets owned by 5 different teams
    Symptom: The annual plan added the single‑lever forecasts: Pricing forecast +2% GP from a 5% list lift; PPA forecast +3% GP from a mix shift; Trade Marketing forecast +1.5% GP from a promo plan refresh; Range Management forecast +1% GP from new SKUs. Total forecast +7.5%. Actual landed at +1.2%. Year‑end attribution debates concluded that 'the levers canceled' without the math to prove which pair canceled which.
    Fix: Run the integrated 5‑lever scenario in the simulator before the committee meeting, and read the Coordination Gap explicitly. The simulator's Sum of individual versus Coordinated actual breakdown is the dollar figure that settles the attribution debate. If the Gap is negative, the rules that fail in the Sequencing Scorecard usually tell you which lever pair is causing friction. A Reference Price Integrity failure means price plus deep promo, and a Premium Mix Coherence failure means premium plus deep promo. A Promo Intensity Discipline failure means too much depth on too much volume, and a Strategic Direction Alignment failure means price and mix moving in opposite directions. Bring the Gap number and the failing rules to the committee; the conversation moves from 'whose lever was wrong' to 'which lever pair must we restructure'.
  2. Mistake 2Funding a price lift with deeper promo to 'protect the volume base'
    Symptom: Pricing took a +5% list lift to recover input‑cost inflation. Trade Marketing was told to deepen promo from 15% to 25% on the same volume base 'to protect the volume base while the list price holds'. The integrated plan landed gross profit about 8% below baseline, which is what the simulator shows for this plan (about -$131K). The Reference Price Erosion warning would have fired if anyone had run the simulator, and depth 25% with price +5% sets the Coordination Band to Broken whatever the gap shows.
    Fix: A price rise and a deeper promotion pull against each other. The simulator's Reference Price Integrity rule says this directly: depth <= 20% OR no price lift. The Coordination Band's second test (depth of 25% or more with a price rise of 3% or more reads Broken whatever the gap) is the second guard. A plan that combines a list‑price rise with deeper promotions should be stopped at the planning stage. When input costs rise, the sounder route is to take the price lift, hold or cut promo depth, and protect the retailer's front margin by reworking the on‑invoice trade terms (modeled in the Manufacturer P&L Sensitivity tool, Integrated RGM Lesson 1).
  3. Mistake 3Adding SKUs to the assortment without a premium anchor
    Symptom: Range Management added 3 new mainstream SKUs to take the pack count from 5 to 8. The volume target was +4.5% (3 SKUs x 1.5% per pack). Actual volume came in at +6%, slightly better than forecast. The team reported success. The Pack Count Discipline rule had failed in the simulator (packs > 7 with mix < 30%) but no one had run it. Two quarters later the category buyer flagged shelf‑presence‑per‑SKU was below the category competitive benchmark and forced a rationalization back to 6 SKUs.
    Fix: SKU expansion needs a premium‑mix anchor. The Pack Count Discipline rule puts it as a test: above 7 SKUs requires premium mix at or above 30%. The reason: adding packs without a premium tier blurs what the range stands for and leaves each SKU with less shelf presence. Sequence it the other way round: shift premium mix first, to anchor the portfolio, then add SKUs, with at least one new SKU in the premium tier.
  4. Mistake 4Reading Gross Profit Δ% in isolation without the Coordination Band
    Symptom: The integrated plan landed gross profit +8% versus baseline, and the team reported it as a successful coordinated plan. Nobody checked the Coordination Band, which read Friction. The single‑lever moves added up to +12%, so the gap was about -4% of baseline gross profit: about $64K lost to levers working against each other. The team booked about +$127K when its own single moves added up to about +$191K.
    Fix: A positive gross profit change on its own does not prove the plan is sound. Read it together with the Coordination Band. On this portfolio, Friction means the levers are losing between about $48K and $159K (3% to 10% of baseline gross profit) by working against each other. When Friction shows up, check the scorecard for a failing rule first. If every rule passes, as on the promo‑reduction play in step 6, look for two levers drawing on the same money, such as depth and VSOD, and pull one of them back. Then run the plan again. The Coordination Band is what separates 'we did okay' from 'we did all we could'.
  5. Mistake 5Setting the integrated GP target by summing single‑lever forecasts
    Symptom: The annual plan target was set at +12% GP by summing four single‑lever forecasts (price +3%, mix +4%, promo +3%, packs +2%). The integrated plan was modeled separately and showed +8% with all 5 rules passing in the Scorecard. The team rejected the +8% as 'below target' and pushed each lever harder; the resulting plan landed -1% because the harder pushes tripped Reference Price Integrity and Premium Mix Coherence. The realistic +8% target had been achievable; the +12% sum‑of‑parts target was out of reach from the start.
    Fix: Set integrated GP targets after running the 5‑lever simulator. In this simulator the coordinated plan usually lands close to the single‑lever results added up, or below them, because the levers share the same volume and the same promotion bill. A price rise shrinks the volume that the mix and promo gains are earned on, and two promotion levers save from the same spend. A team that sets its target at the full sum of its single‑lever forecasts is committing to a plan the numbers are unlikely to deliver. Use the simulator to find the plan with the best gross profit that still passes the Sequencing rules; that gross profit is your realistic target for the integrated plan. Anything above it needs a real change in the inputs (a different elasticity, category position or competitive situation), and pulling the sliders harder will not supply it.
Related concepts

Go deeper on the theory

Continue with the lessons

Go further inside Integrated RGM

This calculator is the sandbox slice of Lesson 6: Cross-Lever Optimization. Each of the other 5 Integrated RGM lessons teaches a complementary concept that sharpens how you read the output above.

See Cross‑Lever Impact Simulator inside the full lesson

RGM Academy lets you pull every commercial lever yourself inside a senior-practitioner simulator, with the AI RGM Strategist coaching every decision you make.

Unlock the full Cross-Lever Optimization lesson

Or see what a team rollout includes