NuX HoldingsNuX Holdings™
N
NuX Holdings™
Demo Environment
Start Subscription
Customer Executive Command Center™ · Boardroom-grade

Luxury Hospitality

Five-star group · 14 properties · 380K annual guests

“Across 14 properties, where is the emotional contract with guests fracturing first?”

Illustrative Live demo data
Handshake chain: Hub → Command → Executive → Oversight
Total enterprise exposure
$47.2M
Annualized · 14 properties
Exposure formula — annualized portfolio
×Annual guest interactions4.56M
×Empathy / continuity failure rate11.8%
=Avg revenue value at risk per failure$88
Raw exposure$47.2M
= Result$47.2M / yr
Source
EIOS™ L1 signal capture · L13 predictive exposure · doctrine III projection
Confidence
Illustrative · Illustrative — projection or demonstration data
Assumptions
  • 380K guests × ~12 interactions/stay = 4.56M annual interactions
  • Failure rate weighted by JII™ component scores and Recovery Trust Score™
  • Value-at-risk derived from ADR + LTV decay curve per cohort
Residual exposure (after EIOS™)
$9.6M
−80% vs baseline
Residual exposure — post-intervention
Baseline exposure$47.2M
−Doctrine interventions landed (90d)$24.8M
−Recovery executions cleared$12.8M
=Residual exposure$9.6M
= Result$9.6M / yr
Source
EIOS™ L6 execution telemetry · L16 exposure ledger
Confidence
Illustrative · Illustrative — projection or demonstration data
Assumptions
  • Assumes intervention durability ≥ 9 months
  • Recovery Trust Score™ holds at current trajectory
Revenue recovered (90d)
$24.8M
Cumulative · trailing
Revenue recovered — repair-effectiveness ledger
×Recovery events fired11,420
×Same-stay recovery rate62.4%
=Avg recovered LTV per event$348
Recovered revenue$24.8M
= Result$24.8M / 90d
Source
EIOS™ L20 autonomous recovery engine · single-customer cohort
Confidence
Measured · n ≥ 10, Honesty Firewall™ verified
Assumptions
  • Recovery counted only when JII™ Repair Effectiveness ≥ 75
  • LTV uses 24-mo decay model
AI deployment risk
HIGH
EII™ 19.2 · L19 partial coverage
AI Humanization Risk — concierge GPT
×AI-mediated interactions / month48,000
×Empathy / continuity failure rate8.9%
×Avg value at risk per failure$26
=Annualization factor12
Annual AI exposure$12.4M
= Result$12.4M / yr
Source
EIOS™ L19 Adaptive Humanization Intelligence™ · pre-deployment doctrine
Confidence
Illustrative · Illustrative — projection or demonstration data
Assumptions
  • Failure rate from observed tone-drift / repetition events
  • Doctrine III thresholds applied
JII™
Journey Integrity Index™
Illustrative
78
/ 100

“Is the journey holding together?”

Continuity81
Memory Preservation74
Handoff Integrity76
Repetition Avoidance69
Repair Effectiveness83
JII™ composite — weighted journey integrity
Continuity (×0.22)81 → 17.8
Memory Preservation (×0.22)74 → 16.3
Handoff Integrity (×0.18)76 → 13.7
Repetition Avoidance (×0.18)69 → 12.4
Repair Effectiveness (×0.20)83 → 16.6
=JII™ composite76.8 → 78
= Result78 / 100
Source
EIOS™ L1 → L4 evidence chain · doctrine III weighting
Confidence
Illustrative · Illustrative — projection or demonstration data
Assumptions
  • Weights tuned for luxury hospitality cohort
  • Rounded to nearest integer for board display
ETS™
Emotional Trust Score™
Illustrative
82
/ 100

“Is the emotional contract being honored?”

Empathy84
Precision88
Warmth86
Dialogue79
Resilience77
Safety81
ETS™ composite — six-domain emotional trust
Empathy84
Precision88
Warmth86
Dialogue79
Resilience77
Safety81
=Equal-weighted mean82.5 → 82
= Result82 / 100
Source
EIOS™ L2 domain scoring · L11 calibration
Confidence
Illustrative · Illustrative — projection or demonstration data
Assumptions
  • Equal weighting until cohort calibration N ≥ 10
HERI™
Human Experience Risk Index™
Illustrative
34
/ 100

“What is our enterprise exposure?”

Regulatory Risk22
Brand Risk41
Customer Risk38
AI Deployment Risk47
Dignity Boundary Risk19
HERI™ composite — risk-weighted exposure
Regulatory (×0.25)22 → 5.5
Brand (×0.20)41 → 8.2
Customer (×0.20)38 → 7.6
AI Deployment (×0.25)47 → 11.8
Dignity Boundary (×0.10)19 → 1.9
=HERI™ composite35.0 → 34
= Result34 / 100 (lower = better)
Source
EIOS™ L13 predictive exposure · L16 exposure command
Confidence
Illustrative · Illustrative — projection or demonstration data
Assumptions
  • Weights elevated for AI deployment per doctrine III
Exposure Decrease · 12-Month Trajectory

$47.2M exposure → $9.6M residual

Live operating canvas — exposure burn-down vs. revenue recovered for this customer. Every datapoint traces back through the Oversight Copilot.

Exposure ↓
80%
$ Avoided
$37.6M
Recovered
$24.8M

Illustrative · Doctrine III · figures illustrative until n ≥ 10 customer cohort

Property Drilldown · 14 of 14

Where the portfolio is holding — and where it isn't.

Sortable in production. Flags reflect EIOS™ L19/L18 doctrine triggers in the last 30 days.

Open Benchmark Exchange™ →
PropertyRegionJII™ETS™HERI™Δ 30dFlag
Aurelia ManhattanNA-East818628+2.1RECOVERING
Aurelia Los AngelesNA-West768336−0.4RECOVERABLEAI drift
Aurelia AspenNA-West848822+1.6RECOVERING
Aurelia MauiNA-West798431+0.9RECOVERING
Aurelia LondonEMEA728041−1.2RECOVERABLEMemory loss
Aurelia ParisEMEA808529+0.6RECOVERING
Aurelia MilanEMEA778234FlatRECOVERING
Aurelia DubaiMEA748138−0.8RECOVERABLEAI drift
Aurelia MarrakeshMEA788332+0.3RECOVERING
Aurelia TokyoAPAC838824+1.9RECOVERING
Aurelia KyotoAPAC828726+1.4RECOVERING
Aurelia BaliAPAC758235−0.5RECOVERING
Aurelia SydneyAPAC788430+0.7RECOVERING
Aurelia Cape TownMEA738137−0.3RECOVERABLE
Top 5 Risks · Customer-scoped HECI Queue

What this CEO must see today.

Trace evidence →
  • R-01CRITICAL· EIOS™ L19
    AI Humanization Collapse — Concierge GPT, 3 properties
    Owner: VP Guest Experience · Trend: +3.1% MoM
    $4.2M
  • R-02AT RISK· EIOS™ L18
    Memory Preservation breach — Aurelia London
    Owner: GM, EMEA · Trend: −0.4% MoM
    $1.8M
  • R-03AT RISK· EIOS™ L1 ↔ L18
    Repetition Avoidance degradation — booking → check-in
    Owner: Chief Digital Officer · Trend: +1.2% MoM
    $1.6M
  • R-04RECOVERABLE· EIOS™ L19
    Dialogue continuity drop — APAC voice channel
    Owner: Regional Director, APAC · Trend: Flat
    $0.9M
  • R-05RECOVERABLE· EIOS™ L22
    Recovery Trust Score™ trending down — NA region
    Owner: Chief Customer Officer · Trend: −2.0% MoM
    $1.5M
Human Intervention Queue · sorted by status

Awaiting your signature.

Triage order: CRITICAL → AT RISK → RECOVERABLE → RECOVERING → SAFE.

  • Approve AI Concierge tone-threshold lift to 0.74 (L19)
    CRITICAL
    Awaiting Chief AI Officer · 4h
  • Sign-off: Memory Preservation hotfix — Aurelia London
    AT RISK
    Awaiting GM, EMEA · 1d
  • Review Senior Care Mode™ rollout to NA properties
    RECOVERABLE
    Awaiting Compliance · 2d
  • Approve board-pack narrative — Q4 exposure recovery
    RECOVERING
    Awaiting CEO · 3d
4 items · 0 auto-approvedOpen Oversight
Peer Benchmark · Luxury Hospitality cohort

How this portfolio stacks against the cohort.

Open Benchmark Library →
This portfolio
78
JII™
82
ETS™
34
HERI™
Luxury cohort median
71
JII™
76
ETS™
42
HERI™
Top-decile peer
84
JII™
89
ETS™
24
HERI™
Executive Risk Brief

AI deployment risk is elevated across three properties.

Concierge AI is repeating questions guests already answered at booking. Empathy is high; Dialogue continuity is degrading. Recovery Trust Score™ in NA region trending downward over last 30 days.

Properties affected
3 of 14
Estimated guests touched
~9,400 / mo
Doctrine layer breached
L18 · Memory Preservation
Brief exposure — 3-property AI drift
×Properties affected3
×Guests touched / property / mo~3,133
×Failure-conversion rate8.9%
×Avg value at risk$26
=Annualization12
Annual brief exposure$2.6M
= Result$2.6M / yr
Source
EIOS™ L19 conversation telemetry · 30-day rolling window
Confidence
Illustrative · Illustrative — projection or demonstration data
Assumptions
  • Guest-touch estimate from concierge interaction logs
  • Value-at-risk anchored to booking ADR
Trace through EIOS™ Open Risk ObservatoryCompare to peers
Trust Firewall™
MeasuredIllustrative