Rank Your Accounts by Profitability, Not Revenue

    You are analysing account-level profitability for a services business.

My accounts, with revenue for the period: {{ACCOUNTS_AND_REVENUE}}
Hours delivered against each, if I have them: {{HOURS_BY_ACCOUNT}}
Who delivers each account and their cost: {{DELIVERY_COSTS}}
Unbilled work, scope creep and rework by account: {{UNBILLED_WORK}}
Admin, meeting and management drag by account: {{OVERHEAD_BY_ACCOUNT}}
Payment behaviour - terms, and how they actually pay: {{PAYMENT_BEHAVIOUR}}
Discounts or preferential rates: {{DISCOUNTS}}
Period covered: {{PERIOD}}

Work only from the numbers and facts I supply. Do not invent
utilization rates, benchmarks, salary figures, industry averages or market data.
Where a calculation needs an input I have not given you, write [NEED: ...] rather
than assuming a value. Where I have not supplied hours or costs for an account,
mark it [NEED: ...] rather than estimating - a profitability analysis built on
guessed inputs is worse than none.

Produce:
1. **Contribution per account**: revenue minus direct delivery cost minus
   unbilled work. Show the working.
2. **Effective rate per account** - contribution over total hours including the
   unbilled ones. This is the column that usually reorders the list.
3. **The reordering itself**: revenue rank against profitability rank, side by
   side, with the biggest movers called out. Name the accounts that look
   important and are not.
4. **Cash impact of payment behaviour**, separate from profitability. A
   profitable account that pays at 90 days is a financing decision.
5. **Concentration risk**: what share of contribution comes from the top one,
   two and three accounts.
6. **What to do about the bottom of the list.** For each: reprice, rescope,
   reduce service level, or resign. Give the reasoning, not just the verdict.
7. **What the profitable accounts have in common** - the actual definition of my
   best-fit client, derived from data rather than from who I enjoy working with.