Enterprise analytics & AI evaluation
TIFFANY HOLMES.AI / INTELLIGENCE STUDIO
ENTERPRISE ANALYTICS × ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Intelligence
engineered for
complex decisions.

Enterprise program controls, financial intelligence, strategic analytics, and AI model evaluation. Explore original, interactive analytical systems built to be examined.

165+Professional control-account experience
03Interactive flagship demonstrations
100%Synthetic demonstration data
AEROSPACE / FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE● SIMULATED
PROGRAM CONTROL CENTER FY 2026
CONTROL ACCOUNTS1655 workstreams
EARNED VALUEEVMSLive calculations
FORECASTINGEACScenario-driven
Program performanceIllustrative trajectory
● Planned● Earned● Actual
WBS HIERARCHYFORECAST SENSITIVITYACCOUNT DRILL-DOWN
THE PORTFOLIO

Selected Work.

Three interactive applications. Real calculations, transparent methods, and synthetic data.

01 / 03
01 / FLAGSHIP SYSTEM
165 CONTROL ACCOUNTS
EARNED VALUE / WBS / FORECASTS
FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE ↗

Aerospace Program
Financial Command Center

Explore 165 synthetic control accounts, multi-level work breakdown structures, earned-value performance, forecast sensitivity, and individual account drill-downs.

EVMSCPI / SPIEAC / ETC165 accounts
02 / OPERATIONS INTELLIGENCE
6REGIONS
REGIONAL PERFORMANCE / SCENARIOS
HEALTHCARE ANALYTICS

Healthcare Growth &
Operations Intelligence

Regional KPIs, placement trends, operational drivers, and interactive growth scenarios.

03 / MODEL QUALITY
REFERENCEVALIDATIONSCORING
REASONING / NUMERICAL INTEGRITY
APPLIED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

AI Model
Evaluation Lab

Compare analytical responses, validate calculations, and examine transparent scoring.

EXPERIENCE & EXPERTISE

Built on real-world
analytical judgment.

Experience spanning aerospace program controls, healthcare operations, executive reporting, and AI quality evaluation. Independent demonstrations are clearly separated from employer work.

01 Aerospace program controls
02 Enterprise business intelligence
03 AI evaluation & quality assurance
04 Strategic performance reporting
INDEPENDENT PORTFOLIO DEMONSTRATIONS · ALL DATA SYNTHETIC · NO CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYER OR CLIENT MATERIALS
Flagship / Enterprise program controls

Aerospace Financial Command Center

A synthetic 165-control-account program environment with earned-value management, WBS rollups, variance detection, and scenario-driven forecasting.

165 control accounts · 5 workstreams · 12 periods

Earned value performance trajectory

WBS workstream performance

Control account explorer Select an account to inspect its history

Operations intelligence / synthetic healthcare

Healthcare Growth & Operations

Regional performance, placement outcomes, identification trends, and operational forecast sensitivities. Metrics use independent illustrative definitions.

6 regions · 12 simulated periods · illustrative 2026 scenario

Placement & identification trend

Regional performance

Outcome drivers & monthly records

AI quality engineering / applied evaluation

AI Model Evaluation Lab

Interactive numerical consistency checks, rubric-weighted assessment, and side-by-side examples of four analytical error scenarios.

Executable validators · transparent scoring
How to use this lab: Choose a scenario, then switch between Candidate A and Candidate B. Compare each response with the reference answer and examine the exact numerical checks. Candidate values and qualitative ratings are explicitly supplied for this illustrative demonstration; no external AI model is queried.

Analytical prompt

Reference answer

Candidate answer

Automated numerical checks

Weighted evaluation

Applied AI / Confidentiality-first professional portfolio

AI Evaluation & Analytical Quality

Independent case studies illustrating analytical judgment, model-output validation, rubric design, and structured quality feedback. These examples are original demonstrations, not reproductions of contracted assignments.

Original demonstrations · No client materials
01 / Numerical integrity

When an AI answer looks plausible but the math is wrong

Challenge: a model reverses the earned-value cost performance ratio, creating an incorrect favorable conclusion. Method: compare each reported metric with an independently calculated reference, flag sign errors, and explain the business impact.

Reference calculations Tolerance checks Executive interpretation

02 / Denominator integrity

Detecting a misleading operational KPI

Challenge: a model uses identified requests instead of eligible requests as the placement-rate denominator, producing an impossible rate above 100%. Method: verify KPI definitions, reconcile the denominator, and document the error.

KPI governance Data validation Error taxonomy

03 / Evaluation methodology

Scoring for repeatability and explainability

A transparent example rubric separates numerical correctness from reasoning quality and clarity. The numerical component is calculated automatically; qualitative components are disclosed as illustrative human judgments.

04 / Enterprise systems thinking

Connecting analytical accuracy to decisions

The aerospace and healthcare environments demonstrate why model outputs must be reconciled to source calculations, well-defined business metrics, and traceable assumptions before they are used in executive reporting.

Demonstrated capability / Evidence map

From professional judgment to testable portfolio artifacts

01 / Program controls

Earned value & forecast analysis

Professional foundation: Cost Account Manager experience with EVM, schedule integration, and financial reporting.
Independent evidence: 165 synthetic accounts, WBS filters, CPI/SPI, EAC sensitivity, account drilldowns, and CSV export.

02 / Operations intelligence

Reliable KPI definitions

Professional foundation: Healthcare operations analysis and leadership reporting.
Independent evidence: Region-level placement and identification measures, volume-weighted aggregation, trends, and scenario analysis.

03 / AI evaluation

Auditable response scoring

Professional foundation: Analytical quality review and structured AI feedback.
Independent evidence: Four original error scenarios, tolerance-based checks, transparent rubric weights, and side-by-side comparisons.

These are independent examples of transferable analytical skills, not representations of specific employer or contractor deliverables.

Professional background / Disclosure standard

Experience across AI evaluation and analytics

Professional experience spans AI response evaluation, numerical consistency review, structured analytical reasoning, data quality assessment, and written quality feedback. Contracting organizations, private project names, proprietary prompts, internal rubrics, screenshots, client datasets, and assignment-specific methods are intentionally omitted unless expressly cleared for public disclosure.

How to interpret this portfolio: Employment experience describes professional responsibilities. All interactive applications and case studies on this site are independent, synthetic demonstrations created for portfolio purposes. No case study claims to be a client deliverable, a production system, or a named commercial-model benchmark.
Professional profile / analytical approach

Enterprise Analytics & AI Evaluation

Tiffany Holmes brings professional experience in aerospace program controls, healthcare performance analytics, executive reporting, and AI evaluation.

Professional experience

Lockheed Martin · Project Integrator / Cost Account Manager
Earned value management, cost and schedule performance, financial forecasting, control-account oversight, and executive reporting.

DaVita · Senior Analyst
Healthcare operations analytics, placement and identification metrics, performance drivers, and leadership reporting.

AI contract experience
Analytical response evaluation, data quality, numerical consistency, and structured feedback. Individual contracting organizations and project specifics are withheld pending agreement-by-agreement clearance.

Technical toolkit

Excel · Deltek Cobra · SAP · Microsoft Project · Smartsheet · Tableau · Anaplan · Snowflake · Jira · Confluence · Executive reporting

Portfolio methodology

These applications are independently built demonstrations using generated synthetic data. They are not employer software, client deliverables, production implementations, or confidential records.

All calculations execute locally in the browser. The downloadable CSV files reproduce the modeled observations.

Calculation definitions & assumptions

EVMS: BAC = sum of account budgets; PV = planned cumulative budget; EV = budgeted value of completed work; AC = cumulative actual spending; CV = EV − AC; SV = EV − PV; CPI = EV / AC; SPI = EV / PV; EAC = AC + (BAC − EV) / adjusted CPI; ETC = EAC − AC. Zero denominators yield unavailable values. Account time series use deterministic synthetic progress and spending curves, and program metrics are recomputed from underlying accounts rather than averaging account indices.

Healthcare: Identification rate = identified requests / eligible requests; placement rate = placed requests / eligible requests. All outcomes are mutually exclusive illustrative categories; monthly counts are generated at the region-month level. Scenario placement improvement adjusts projected rates, not historical outcomes.

AI evaluation: numerical validation compares explicitly supplied candidate values to reference calculations with defined tolerances; scoring combines accuracy (60%), reasoning completeness (25%), and presentation clarity (15%). This is a demonstration of evaluation methodology, not a benchmark of any named commercial model.