labor_efficiency
0.94
Rev/labor-hour −22% vs. cluster, staffing mismatch at 11a–1p peak
Know which promos actually work. Ward runs it directly off your Snowflake feed, read-only, with no changes to your Data Platform.
Ward connects via Snowflake SQL API with key-pair authentication. Read-only warehouse. Your data never leaves Snowflake.
Agents run against your baselines overnight. These are what they flagged without being asked.
labor_efficiency
0.94
Rev/labor-hour −22% vs. cluster, staffing mismatch at 11a–1p peak
inventory.fresh
0.89
Fresh fill 83%, backroom replenishment lag at 2–4p
promo.lift
0.81
BOGO crackers cannibalized Brand Y by 28%, net category +6%
Re-baseline Store 37 schedule against true peak, raise replen window to 1p, and review the BOGO before next cycle.
Connect external systems. Ward AI maps the schema and drafts the cleaning rules.
| Name | Type | Last sync |
|---|---|---|
sap_pos_transactions | import | 2m ago |
sap_inventory_shrinkage | import | 2m ago |
sap_labor_scheduling | import | 14m ago |
retail_inventory_weekly | import | 1h ago |
retail_google_ads_daily | import | 1h ago |
retail_meta_ads_daily | import | 1h ago |
retail_ga4_website_daily | import | 1h ago |
Move data from sources into models on a schedule. Describe the sync; Ward AI builds it.
| Name | Source | Model | Status | Schedule |
|---|---|---|---|---|
sync_sap_pos_transactions | sap_pos_transactions | pos_transactions | enabled | hourly |
sync_sap_inventory_shrinkage | sap_inventory_shrinkage | inventory_shrinkage | enabled | daily |
sync_sap_labor_scheduling | sap_labor_scheduling | labor_scheduling | enabled | daily |
sync_retail_inventory_weekly | retail_inventory_weekly | inventory_weekly | enabled | weekly |
sync_retail_google_ads_daily | retail_google_ads_daily | google_ads_daily | enabled | daily |
sync_retail_meta_ads_daily | retail_meta_ads_daily | meta_ads_daily | enabled | daily |
Ward queries your Snowflake data warehouse directly. If your retail data lives in Snowflake, Ward reads it without moving or copying anything.
Credentials are read-only and locked to the objects you name. Ward cannot reach a table you did not grant it, and write access is opt-in per object rather than implied by the connection.
Ward queries Snowflake in place and keeps no second copy. Your region, your retention policy, and no staging warehouse in the middle.
Every connector carries a schema contract. A source that changes shape fails the contract and stops the pipeline, rather than quietly writing wrong rows until someone notices the numbers moved.
Ward measures true promotional lift net of cannibalization, pull-forward, and pantry loading.
Ward isolates incremental volume from baseline, measures cross-SKU cannibalization, estimates pull-forward effects, and calculates true ROI.
Definitions resolve through the semantic layer, so a number here reconciles with the dashboard your team already publishes instead of disagreeing with it quietly. How the layer works →
BOGO on Brand X crackers lifted units 34% but cannibalized Brand Y by 28%. Net category lift: only +6%.
Up to 72% of trade promotions fail to break even on net margin. — Nielsen
Agents on your own data fail the security review, not the demo. The model is never the problem. The problem is that nobody can say what the agent is allowed to reach, what it already did, or what happens when it is wrong.
The agent sees the Snowflake objects you declared on the source and nothing else. Scope is enforced at query time, not in the client.
Read-only until you grant a write action explicitly, per object. A grant leaves a record naming the agent, the caller and the rows it touched.
One audit log covers every person and every agent in the tenant, so a reviewer answers one question against one system rather than correlating two.
Describe the job in plain English. Ward AI proposes the agent and the exact permissions it would need against your Snowflake objects, and the proposal sits there until a person approves it. Nothing runs on a draft.
Every finding it returns carries the SQL that produced it. If the query is wrong you can see that it is wrong, which is the only way a data team ever trusts one of these.
What promo effectiveness off Snowflake looks like once it is live. Retail is where Ward is deployed, not what Ward is.
30,000+ SKUs · stores
A major snack vendor proposes a co-op BOGO program across 12 SKUs. Gross lift looks strong, but Ward shows net category lift is minimal after accounting for cannibalization and pantry-loading pull-forward. Several SKUs generate negative net category contribution. Ward provides SKU-level promo scorecards the category manager uses to restructure the deal around the SKUs with genuine incremental lift.
The grocery build →3,000+ SKUs · locations
A top beverage vendor runs 26 promotional events per year across the chain. Ward reveals that fewer than half generate positive net margin after accounting for cannibalization and margin erosion. Ward provides per-event ROI scorecards the category manager uses to renegotiate: fewer but deeper promotions on high-ROI events, elimination of negative-margin ones, and better vendor funding terms.
The convenience build →15,000+ SKUs · locations
Marketing declares the annual Friends & Family event a win based on weekend revenue lift. Ward's full-cycle analysis shows substantial pre-event demand suppression and post-event pull-forward decline that cut net incrementality roughly in half. New customer acquisition during the event ran well below non-promo weekends. Ward recommends replacing the blanket discount with targeted acquisition offers that actually grow the customer base.
The fashion build →Your platform team owns the connection, the definitions and the policy. These are the teams that consume what comes out of it.
Merchandising
True net lift after cannibalization and pull-forward. Not gross.
What they see →Finance
Promo ROI scorecards. The money-losing campaigns surfaced before renewal.
What they see →E-Commerce
Online promo lift quantified against offline cannibalization.
What they see →| Measure | Effect | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Time to Insight | Zero-copy, zero-ETL | Queries run against existing warehouse tables directly. |
| Forecast Accuracy | Enrichment joins added | Weather, events, and demographics joined to Snowflake tables. |
| Data Utilization | Dormant tables activated | Unused warehouse data brought into cross-domain analysis. |
| Anomaly Detection Speed | Continuous monitoring | Deviations caught days before scheduled reports surface them. |
Ward connects via Snowflake SQL API with key-pair authentication. Read-only warehouse. Your data never leaves Snowflake.
Ward reads Any table or view in your Snowflake account, Cross-database joins and Historical data at any depth. Credentials are read-only and scoped to the objects you name, so Ward cannot reach a table you did not grant it.
No. Ward queries Snowflake in place and holds no second copy of your data. Nothing is exported to run Promo Effectiveness, and your residency and retention policy are unchanged by connecting Ward.
Every connector carries a schema contract. When a source changes shape the contract fails loudly and the pipeline stops, rather than writing wrong rows into your warehouse for a week before anyone notices the numbers moved.
Ward measures true promotional lift net of cannibalization, pull-forward, and pantry loading. Ward isolates incremental volume from baseline, measures cross-SKU cannibalization, estimates pull-forward effects, and calculates true ROI.
Yes. Every figure Ward reports carries the query that produced it, resolved through the semantic layer, so it reconciles with the dashboard your team already publishes rather than disagreeing with it quietly.
Only what you declared. An agent is scoped to named tables and cannot reach past them, it is read-only unless you grant a write action explicitly, and every query, tool call and result is logged against the agent identity that made it.
Typically VP / Director of Merchandising, CFO / VP Finance and Head of E-Commerce / Digital. They read the output; your platform team owns the connection, the definitions and the policy that produced it.
A major snack vendor proposes a co-op BOGO program across 12 SKUs. Gross lift looks strong, but Ward shows net category lift is minimal after accounting for cannibalization and pantry-loading pull-forward. Several SKUs generate negative net category contribution. Ward provides SKU-level promo scorecards the category manager uses to restructure the deal around the SKUs with genuine incremental lift.
Deploying is free. You pay 5% of the model compute it uses, and nothing else. No call required to find out whether this works on your data.
Read-only to start · your LLM keys · SOC 2 Type II underway · or book a call directly
Tell us about your operation. We’ll show you the problems Ward catches, and the ones your current tools miss.