Skip to content
oozmi

Stock the storefront actually sells

Stock counts in one system, storefront cache in another, OMS commits in a third — every drift is a chargeback, an oversell, or a write-off no one can fully reconstruct. oozmi puts the count, the reservation, and the receipt on the same record.

  1. 01 Warehouse

    Count, pick, and ship on the source row.

    A truck arrives. Receiving scans an incoming PO line — the same row procurement raised and AP will eventually match. One commit updates stock count, posts the GRN, and clears the open-PO balance: buyer's report and CFO's accrued-liabilities report both read the column the warehouse just wrote. Picks reference the same order line the storefront reserved and OMS routed. AI Builder proposes cycle counts and putaway locations against the same tables the floor posts to; the ops lead ratifies every diff.

  2. One stock row

    The count receiving writes is the row the storefront reserves against and OMS commits to. No cached copy, no nightly sync.

    Receipt closes the PO

    Receiving against an incoming PO updates stock, posts the GRN, and clears the open-PO balance in one commit.

    Pick on the order line

    The pick task is a column on the same order line the customer placed and OMS routed.

    Cycle counts as data

    Cadences, bin layouts, and variance thresholds are records, not partner-repo config. Ops edits them in admin.

    AI proposes, ops ratifies

    AI Builder proposes cycle counts, putaway locations, and reorder points. The ops lead reviews the diff and ratifies.

    Audit on every move

    Every receipt, pick, pack, count, allocation, ship, return logs actor, before, after, agent_id. One config screen.

  3. 02 Supply

    Three-way match without a reconciliation step.

    Procurement raises a PO. Vendor row, contract terms, GL coding, and approval routing are all properties of the same PO record. Receiving writes back to it; AP matches the invoice against it; finance reads the open-liability balance from it. No three-way reconciliation between procurement, receiving, and finance — there is only one row to compare. AI Builder proposes reorder points and vendor consolidations against the same tables procurement edits; the buyer ratifies.

  4. One PO, three teams

    Procurement, receiving, and AP read and write the same PO row. The amount on the PO IS the amount on the GRN IS the amount on the invoice.

    Vendor master is the row

    Contracts, terms, payment details, and risk flags live on the vendor record. Approvals read them; AP pays against them.

    Three-way match on the PO

    PO, GRN, and invoice agree by definition — they share the row. Reconciliation collapses to a query.

    Open-PO balance is real

    Finance reads accrued liabilities from the same column receiving updates. No quarter-end true-up cycle.

  5. 03 Projects

    Plans that respect the calendar.

    An editorial release plan opens. Each task references the same employee row HR maintains and the same time_entry row the timesheet posts to; assignment is a query against the calendar HR uses for leave, not a guess against a copy of it. Project burn reads from time entries the timesheet wrote; finance posts the journal from the same hours. The boundary: Project Management is in pilot at Laguna for editorial operations — title release plans, lectoring schedules, and resource conflicts. Production-floor MRP is on the Manufacturing roadmap, not shipped today.

  6. Task references the row

    A project task points at the employee record HR writes to — assignment respects leave, role, and skill without a sync.

    Burn reads the timesheet

    Project actuals query the same time_entry rows payroll posts. Burn and billing never disagree with the GL.

    Resource conflict from HR

    Calendar conflicts surface from the same leave records HR maintains — not from a stale resource-tool copy.

    AI proposes timelines

    AI Builder proposes project timelines from past plans + team velocity. PM ratifies; the platform writes the rows.

Manufacturing Planned

Production orders on the same row warehouse counts. Work centers and material allocation on the same schema procurement, projects, and finance already read.

Production-floor MRP at SAP depth is the named gap. Scoped against the Industrial Operations industry brief; no product surface yet.

Production vs Pilot

Production today
  • Warehouse — receiving, picking, packing, shipping, cycle counts
  • Supply Management — vendor records, POs, three-way match, AP context
  • OMS routing on the same stock row the warehouse writes
  • Storefront reading inventory from the warehouse tables directly
  • audit_events on every receipt, pick, ship, count, allocation
In pilot
  • Project Management (Laguna editorial — release plans, lectoring, resource conflicts)
  • AI-proposed cycle counts and putaway locations
  • AI-proposed reorder points and vendor consolidations
  • AI-proposed project timelines from past plans + team velocity
  • Manufacturing — production orders, work centers, material allocation (planned)

Where it fits

Operations shares records with OMS , Ecommerce , ERP , Workflows , Ticketing , and AI Builder — the same row across every module that wrote it. No second copy, no reconciliation step.

Often read alongside: Finance & Compliance , Front Office , and Managers .

Next step — 25 minutes

Bring one process your ops team can't change without a developer — we'll run it live.

A cycle-count cadence, a reorder point, an approval threshold, a project template — or whatever your floor argued about last quarter. Twenty-five minutes. We open admin, change the rule against a sandbox of your stock + PO data, and show what it looks like on the same row warehouse, supply, projects, and finance all read.