Loading
Because the board and the contract live in different tools. The team plans in sprints, the commercial reality sits in a document nobody opens after kickoff, and scope creep is noticed as a feeling three sprints in.
By the time it shows up in margin, four weeks of work have already been given away.
Sprints, velocity and burndown work as you would expect, and the phases they sit under came from the accepted quote rather than a kickoff conversation. Time logged against a task becomes both cost and billable value on the same record.
So a story added mid-sprint is visible as variance against what was sold, at the moment it is added.
It is not a code host and it does not replace your issue tracker's developer ergonomics. It integrates through the API, and holds the layer above: phases, capacity, time and what was contracted.
And it will not make an estimate accurate. It will show you, unarguably, how the last six estimates went.
Delivery risk is derived from the work itself — ageing tasks, dependency chains that have not moved, capacity that was never there — rather than from whoever speaks first. The AI standup digest summarises what actually changed, citing the tasks it read.
Margin per project is a comparison of two numbers on one record, not a quarterly finance exercise.
Yes — sprints, velocity and burndown, with a backlog that carries the sold scope alongside.
Yes, through the API. Loop holds phases, capacity, time and margin rather than duplicating the tracker.
As variance against the sold lines, on the project record, as soon as it is added.
Half an hour on your own numbers is usually enough to say whether Loop is the right place to start.