Ecosystem Promise & Portfolio Review

TOOL GUIDE VERSION 1.1 Ecosystem Promise and Portfolio Review Connect your offerings, contribution to place and workable delivery. For venture teams and programme leads reviewing up to three products, services or programmes. Allow 75-100 minutes initially, with follow-up for missing evidence. The decision this helps you make Which offerings should you retain, redesign, test or stop? Connect user and payer value, intended contribution to place, and the income, resources and capabilities that sustain delivery. 01 Shape a promise with affected people Name what should become possible, for whom, where and by when. Include living systems, capabilities and relationships; state limits, missing perspectives and what remains unproven. 02 Compare the venture's offerings For each product, service or programme, connect contribution, user, payer, delivery, money assumptions and evidence. Separate beneficiaries from payers. Keep projections and observations distinct. 03 Examine the commercial and portfolio logic Check price, demand, full costs, shared resources and payment timing. Name who covers a shortfall and whether funding is committed. Do not add overlapping users, benefits or revenue twice. 04 Explain a choice and its next evidence Choose retain, redesign, test or stop for each offer, with a reason. Review the priority offering on page 3; name its owner, budget boundary, evidence rule and review. Return proposed term changes to affected people. A promise is a contribution to work towards. Define it with people affected and revisit it as evidence changes. Popularity, positive cash flow and activity counts do not establish the intended contribution. Use judgement and evidence rather than a weighted total score; one serious unresolved harm can change the decision. Pages 2-3: fillable A3 portfolio and A4 decision; pages 4-5: fictional irrigation choices after simulated learning. Add sheets as needed; save and reopen. No real outcomes are reported. Refuture Africa | Version 1.1 | 20 October 2026 1

WORKSHEET 1 / VENTURE OFFERING PORTFOLIO VERSION 1.1 Ecosystem Promise and Portfolio Review Compare up to three products, services or programmes against one promise; add sheets for a larger portfolio. Decision and scope Place and period People and date The promise to people and place What should become possible, for whom, where and by when? Who helped shape this intention? Conditions, limits and evidence What must hold? Who bears costs or risk, and what is still unproven? Offering / status / user Contribution / how it happens Payer / charge / delivery Income / costs / cash needs Evidence / wider effects Decision / reason / next check EVIDENCE / K = sourced observation with date and limits; A = assumption; ? = unknown; S = simulated teaching data, never a field result. Dependencies and portfolio trade-offs Where do offers complement or compete? Check shared users, costs, outcomes and funding. Portfolio decision and next review What changes, why, who authorises it, and which unresolved issue could change the choice? Refuture Africa | Version 1.1 | 20 October 2026 2

WORKSHEET 2 / ONE OFFERING DECISION VERSION 1.1 Review one priority offering Ecosystem Promise and Portfolio Review / make reasoning, funding and the next commitment explicit. Selected offer and decision Which offering, scope and period are being reviewed? Contribution and comparison How could change happen? What would likely happen without this offer? Income and operating costs State currency, unit, period, volumes and exclusions. Payment timing and upfront cash When does money arrive or leave? What gap and funding remain? Evidence and decision threshold What evidence supports the choice? What must a test show? Wider effects and dependencies Which harm, exclusion or ecological effects need enquiry? Decision and portfolio trade-off Retain, redesign, test or stop? How does it affect other offers? Action, owner, budget and review Who acts, with what spend limit, resources and review trigger? MONEY CHECK / Separate revenue, operating remainder and cash available. Check units, periods, shared costs, payment dates and funding conditions; social value is not business revenue. Refuture Africa | Version 1.1 | 20 October 2026 3

WORKED PORTFOLIO / SIMULATED VERSION 1.1 Ecosystem Promise and Portfolio Review Solar irrigation / S = simulated; A = assumption; ? = unknown. No real outcomes, participation or agreements. Decision and scope Solar irrigation / fictional review after simulated trial Place and period 20 plots + shared source / confirm boundary People and date Proposed team / agree dates The promise to people and place Proposed for discussion: by 2030, help growers in the five-acre service area improve crop quality, reliable production and margins, while developing local operating capability and soil-water care. Growers, other users and advisers must help shape and judge it; no promise is agreed. Conditions, limits and evidence Stay within lawful source access and an informed water budget; protect other users and fair access. Establish crop-margin, source, soil and capability evidence separately. Solar power, repeat payment and training attendance do not establish regeneration. Offering / status / user Contribution / how it happens Payer / charge / delivery Income / costs / cash needs Evidence / wider effects Decision / reason / next check A / Metered supplementary irrigation. Proposed service for growers; one crop-cycle test is simulated for teaching. Reliable water at suitable times could improve crop quality and margins. Requires appropriate soil-water care, safe allocation and effective delivery. Growers pay an illustrative KES 50/m³; operator delivers scheduling, metering, operation and maintenance. No real demand or partner confirmed. A / 20-grower four-week plan: revenue KES 80,000; variable KES 20,000; fixed KES 40,000. Remainder KES 20,000 before finance/tax/capital recovery; not trial accounts. S / Median paired crop-margin gain 6.7%; 8/10 pay again. The combined at-least-10% AND 8/10 rule is missed. Wider effects remain unproven. REDESIGN / Investigate price, crop value and costs before extension. Compare B inside the same water budget; do not lower the learning rule. B / Capped seasonal service offer. Proposed alternative to A for the same growers; not additional demand. Could weaken the incentive to sell more water and improve cost predictability. A cap does not create extra water or guarantee source reliability. Grower payer proposed; seasonal fee, permitted volume, timing, refunds and outage terms unknown. Operation and maintenance still need funding. ? / No price, paid demand or cash case yet. Cost seasonal delivery, capacity, shared assets and deposits. Do not count A and B as separate sales to the same users. ? / Compare affordability, actual paid choice, allocation incentives, margins and full costs. No findings or accepted terms; check inclusion. TEST / First cost the alternative and agree terms, budget and decision rule. Do not claim it is cheaper or viable before evidence. C / Optional soil-water advisory partnership. Proposed separate offer; distinguish it from essential care within A/B. Could support soil cover, infiltration and farmer capability if people can apply the practice with resources and authority. Advice alone does not prove renewal. Grower payment or a sponsor is possible, not confirmed. Agree adviser scope and knowledge use; do not assume unpaid farmer or technical labour. ? / No standalone fee, demand or funding. Cost adviser time, farmer participation and follow-up. Essential training/care within A/B must be funded once. ? / No demand, practice-change or soil evidence. Track action, conditions and outcomes over seasons; avoid counting the same contribution twice. STOP separate paid launch for now. Retain costed essential support within A/B; revisit a distinct offer if a credible need, payer and delivery route emerge. EVIDENCE / K = sourced observation with date and limits; A = assumption; ? = unknown; S = simulated teaching data, never a field result. Dependencies and portfolio trade-offs A and B are alternative payment/delivery offers for the same growers and source; their demand and benefits cannot simply be added. C may enable either. Allocate equipment, staff, training, monitoring and advisory costs once on an explicit basis. Portfolio decision and next review Redesign A, prepare a costed comparison with B and hold C's separate paid launch. Proposed venture lead returns with operator, growers and other users before a new commitment; dates and decision authority must be agreed. All results here are simulated or unknown. Refuture Africa | Version 1.1 | 20 October 2026 4

WORKED OFFERING DECISION / FICTIONAL VERSION 1.1 Review one priority offering Ecosystem Promise and Portfolio Review / make reasoning, funding and the next commitment explicit. Selected offer and decision A / Metered irrigation. Decide whether a revised offer deserves another bounded test after the simulated crop-cycle result. The review is fictional; no participant, payment or observation is real. Contribution and comparison Compare matched plots or a credible crop-margin baseline. Crop, weather, prices and other practices also affect results. Compare B and a no-new-pumping option; a small test does not isolate every cause or prove regeneration. Income and operating costs A / 20 growers × 80 m³ × KES 50 = KES 80,000 per four weeks. Variable KES 20,000 + fixed KES 40,000 leaves KES 20,000 before finance, tax and capital recovery. Demand assumption, not crop prescription or 10-grower trial accounts. Payment timing and upfront cash ? / Quote kit hire or purchase, deposits, wages, maintenance and monitoring. Schedule receipts, outgoings and an outage/refund buffer. No opening cash or funding source is supplied; agree a cash forecast and spend limit before committing. Evidence and decision threshold S / Median paired crop-margin gain 6.7%; paid repeat 8/10. The combined rule requires at least 10% AND 8/10, with water/access/safety conditions met. The margin condition fails. Revisit design, not the threshold after results. Wider effects and dependencies ? / Check source condition and other users' access, smaller growers, tenants, funded upkeep and soil-water functions. Confirm rights, capability and monitoring. Neither ecological renewal nor lasting capability is established by the simulation. Decision and portfolio trade-off REDESIGN A; cost B as an alternative, not extra sales. Hold C's standalone launch while funding essential care inside the service. Return price, payer, allocation and responsibility changes to affected people before any new agreement. Action, owner, budget and review Proposed lead and operator bring costed options and the cash gap to growers and other users. Confirm authority, a bounded budget, finance and a new test rule before starting. Review after the next bounded test or sooner on a source/safety trigger. QUIETER PERIOD / 12 growers: KES 48,000 - KES 12,000 variable - KES 40,000 fixed = KES 4,000 shortfall before finance, tax and capital recovery. Refuture Africa | Version 1.1 | 20 October 2026 5

REVIEW, EVIDENCE AND USE VERSION 1.1 What changes the decision? Keep evidence, uncertainty and responsibility visible. Use the four decisions deliberately Retain when contribution, delivery and funding are sufficiently supported for the present decision. Redesign when the purpose matters but the offer or terms must change. Test when a material unknown needs bounded evidence. Stop or defer an offering without a credible route or with unresolved harm; plan a fair exit. Keep the promise and money connected A venture's portfolio is its products, services and programmes, not a ranking of unrelated investments. Separate user benefit, contribution to place, revenue, operating remainder and cash available. Confirm who bears a shortfall; avoid double-counting shared costs or overlapping outcomes. Sources and attribution Teaching lineage Bárbara Leão de Carvalho / Boutique Impact Drivers (2025), Value Proposition & Portfolio, supplied deck pp. 9-11 and 17-20; Graham Miller (2025), Week 3 - rethinking value, pp. 21, 31-32 and 38-40. Informs contribution, offerings, business logic and cash; original artwork is not reproduced. Place and development Pamela Mang and Bill Reed (2012), Designing from place: a regenerative framework and methodology, Building Research & Information 40(1), 23-38. Original source online Contribution and other causes Impact Frontiers, Five Dimensions of Impact: Contribution. Supports enquiry into what might happen otherwise and the role of other actors. Original source online Cash timing British Business Bank, How to create a cash flow forecast in 4 steps. Supports separating payment dates and upfront cash from income and costs. Original source online Irrigation context FAO (12 April 2018), Positive prospects for solar-powered irrigation systems. The sector guidance explains opportunities and risks, including unsustainable water withdrawal. It does not validate this invented case or its figures. Original source online Original Refuture Africa wording and layout. Use in projects and workshops with attribution; retain the version and source notes. Third-party works retain their own terms. Feedback: refutureafrica.com/resources. Imagine otherwise. Build differently. Refuture Africa | Version 1.1 | 20 October 2026 6