Separate illustrative sample file
Sample Standard Commercial Viability File
See the kind of analysis included in the £49 Standard Commercial Viability File after a free commercial check. This is a separate illustrative case, not the same sample used on the homepage.
Quick answer
The sample shows how the paid file turns a free check into a printable memo with rent burden, break-even pressure, opening cash, downside trading, lease questions, and evidence prompts. It is designed to show the structure, wording, and level of detail in the £49 Standard Commercial Viability File before you pay. This is a separate illustrative case, not the live result.
Location context
This sample also shows how a postcode or address can help the memo keep local rent evidence, business rates, EPC, and building-condition prompts in view without pretending to verify those inputs.
This sample shows the kind of first-pass viability thinking a user can get before spending more on formal lease review, surveys and professional checks.
It also shows how the memo can frame business-type assumptions such as covers, orders, appointments, footfall, stock margin, and chair utilisation where relevant.
Sample file cover
Fragile
Reference SAMPLE-FILE · Sample date
Score
49
Verdict
Fragile
The downside month covers operating costs, but upfront cash is the real issue.
Score
49/100
The site needs caution because the opening capital stack is weak.
Opening shortfall
£36,000
Upfront cash needed is higher than starting cash before trading begins.
Rent burden
20.0%
Rent takes a high share of expected monthly revenue.
Final view
This is a sample decision-support file using fictional and redacted inputs. YieldLens UK provides indicative decision-support only. It is not a valuation, financial advice, mortgage advice, legal advice, tax advice, or a substitute for professional due diligence.
The practical questions are rent-free time, landlord contribution, staged fit-out, and whether the opening trade evidence is strong enough to justify the lease.
The key checks
A fragile site that fails the opening capital test.
The downside month still covers operating costs, but the site does not have enough cash after opening to absorb the fit-out and setup burden.
What the sample shows
This separate illustrative case shows how the memo connects the opening capital stack to the verdict. The main pressure point is not the downside month on its own. It is the amount of cash that leaves the business before trading has a chance to stabilise.
Verdict
Fragile
The downside month covers operating costs, but upfront cash is the real issue.
Score
49/100
The site needs caution because the opening capital stack is weak.
Decision-support visuals
The fast read before the written detail.
The sample mirrors the paid file’s visual language: rent burden, break-even gap, opening capital stack, and downside survival.
Base case
Monthly revenue: £24,960
Monthly position: £10,860 surplus
Break-even/day: 45.2
Current assumptions are workable month to month, but the opening shortfall remains the main issue.
Revenue down 20%
Monthly revenue: £19,968
Monthly position: £5,868 surplus
Break-even/day: 56.5
Trading is weaker, but the site still covers the cost base on these inputs.
Revenue down 40%
Monthly revenue: £14,976
Monthly position: £876 surplus
Break-even/day: 75.4
The downside case still covers operating costs, which is why the opening capital stack matters more than monthly burn.
Costs up 15%
Monthly revenue: £24,960
Monthly position: £8,745 surplus
Break-even/day: 52.1
Higher costs narrow the margin and make trading assumptions more fragile.
Rent reduced 10%
Monthly revenue: £24,960
Monthly position: £11,360 surplus
Break-even/day: 43.3
A lower rent improves the operating margin and eases break-even pressure.
Rent burden
Indicative YieldLens screening threshold
12% is healthier. 18% is the caution threshold. Above 18% needs stronger trading evidence or sharper lease terms. These are indicative YieldLens screening thresholds, not universal rules.
Daily volume
Break-even versus expected customers
Margin of safety
+34.8 per day
Room on paper, but expected customers still need evidence.
Opening cash
The capital stack before trading begins
Total requirement
= Upfront cash needed
£126,000
Opening shortfall
-£36,000
The deal needs more starting cash, a lower fit-out or deposit, or stronger landlord terms before it feels comfortable.
Downside survival
What happens if trading weakens?
Downside revenue
60.0%
Revenue case used for the weaker trading view.
Downside revenue value
£14,976
Revenue after the weaker-trading assumption.
The downside month still covers operating costs, but the opening capital stack fails the six-month test.
Site snapshot
The basic assumptions behind the sample case.
Business type
Cafe
Address
Redacted high street site
Postcode
NW6 sample
Reference
SAMPLE-FILE
Annual rent
£60,000
Monthly rent
£5,000
Average spend
£12
Expected customers/day
80
Opening days/month
26
Redacted
Key viability metrics
The core numbers the paid file makes easy to review.
Monthly revenue
£24,960
Monthly rent
£5,000
Rent burden
20%
Monthly cost base
£14,100
Break-even customers/day
45.2
Expected customers/day
80
Upfront cash and survival
The opening capital stack is the weak point.
Fit-out budget
£50,000
Rent deposit
£15,000
Legal fees
£3,000
Opening stock
£8,000
Other setup costs
£50,000
Starting cash
£90,000
Upfront cash needed
£126,000
Cash after opening
-£36,000
Downside revenue case
60%
Downside monthly revenue
£14,976
Downside monthly position
£876
Monthly burn in downside
£0
Six-month survival test
Fail
What would need to improve?
The deal needs a stronger opening capital position.
The site is not failing because the downside month burns cash. It is failing because upfront cash needed exceeds available starting cash before trading begins.
Stress-test scenarios
How the site behaves under weaker trading or improved lease terms.
Base case
Monthly revenue: £24,960
Monthly position: £10,860 surplus
Break-even/day: 45.2
Current assumptions are workable month to month, but the opening shortfall remains the main issue.
Revenue down 20%
Monthly revenue: £19,968
Monthly position: £5,868 surplus
Break-even/day: 56.5
Trading is weaker, but the site still covers the cost base on these inputs.
Revenue down 40%
Monthly revenue: £14,976
Monthly position: £876 surplus
Break-even/day: 75.4
The downside case still covers operating costs, which is why the opening capital stack matters more than monthly burn.
Costs up 15%
Monthly revenue: £24,960
Monthly position: £8,745 surplus
Break-even/day: 52.1
Higher costs narrow the margin and make trading assumptions more fragile.
Rent reduced 10%
Monthly revenue: £24,960
Monthly position: £11,360 surplus
Break-even/day: 43.3
A lower rent improves the operating margin and eases break-even pressure.
| Scenario | Monthly revenue | Monthly position | Break-even/day | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base case | £24,960 | £10,860 surplus | 45.2 | Current assumptions are workable month to month, but the opening shortfall remains the main issue. |
| Revenue down 20% | £19,968 | £5,868 surplus | 56.5 | Trading is weaker, but the site still covers the cost base on these inputs. |
| Revenue down 40% | £14,976 | £876 surplus | 75.4 | The downside case still covers operating costs, which is why the opening capital stack matters more than monthly burn. |
| Costs up 15% | £24,960 | £8,745 surplus | 52.1 | Higher costs narrow the margin and make trading assumptions more fragile. |
| Rent reduced 10% | £24,960 | £11,360 surplus | 43.3 | A lower rent improves the operating margin and eases break-even pressure. |
Negotiation levers
Practical lease points worth testing before signing.
Lower headline rent
A lower rent reduces the monthly burden and improves the room available for staff, rates, stock, and quieter trading.
Rent-free period
A rent-free start gives the business breathing room while the site is being fitted out and early trading stabilises.
Landlord fit-out contribution
A contribution reduces the amount of cash that leaves the business before trading begins.
Reduced deposit
A smaller deposit keeps more cash in the business for opening stock and launch working capital.
Break clause
A break clause lowers the downside if the trading case fails to improve after launch.
Service charge cap
A cap helps stop shared costs from drifting beyond the numbers used in the initial check.
Repairing obligations
Clear repair terms reduce the risk of hidden costs after the lease is signed.
Permitted use flexibility
Flexible permitted use helps the business adapt if the original concept needs to change.
Evidence needed before signing
Trading, cost, and lease evidence that should be checked first.
If the sample points you toward a lease question you have not checked yet, start with the commercial lease checklist before signing.
Trading evidence
- Footfall counts
- Competitor observations
- Average spend validation
- Opening-hours assumption
- Local demand
Cost evidence
- Business rates bill or estimate
- Utility estimate
- Insurance
- Service charge
- Fit-out quotes
- Legal fees
Lease/legal evidence
- Rent review
- Break clause
- Repairing obligations
- Assignment and subletting
- Planning and licensing
- Handover condition
Ranked actions before committing
A quick read on what matters most in the sample case.
Rent burden
Current signal: 20.0% of expected revenue
What would improve it: Move closer to 12% if possible, or at least reduce pressure below the caution threshold.
Priority: High
Customer assumptions
Current signal: 45.2 break-even/day vs 80 expected
What would improve it: Keep expected footfall and spend supported by evidence rather than optimism.
Priority: Medium
Upfront cash
Current signal: £36,000 opening shortfall
What would improve it: Raise starting cash, lower setup costs, or negotiate landlord support.
Priority: High
Downside survival
Current signal: No monthly burn in downside case, but opening cash fails
What would improve it: Fix the opening capital stack before focusing on operating burn.
Priority: High
Lease terms
Current signal: Still worth checking carefully
What would improve it: Improve rent, deposit, break clause, service charge, and permitted use terms.
Priority: Medium
Missing evidence
Current signal: Some assumptions are still redacted
What would improve it: Gather trading, cost, and lease evidence before signing.
Priority: Medium
| Area | Current signal | What would improve it | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent burden | 20.0% of expected revenue | Move closer to 12% if possible, or at least reduce pressure below the caution threshold. | High |
| Customer assumptions | 45.2 break-even/day vs 80 expected | Keep expected footfall and spend supported by evidence rather than optimism. | Medium |
| Upfront cash | £36,000 opening shortfall | Raise starting cash, lower setup costs, or negotiate landlord support. | High |
| Downside survival | No monthly burn in downside case, but opening cash fails | Fix the opening capital stack before focusing on operating burn. | High |
| Lease terms | Still worth checking carefully | Improve rent, deposit, break clause, service charge, and permitted use terms. | Medium |
| Missing evidence | Some assumptions are still redacted | Gather trading, cost, and lease evidence before signing. | Medium |
Methodology proof
The sample shows how the memo holds the numbers together.
Why the sample looks this way
The sample file keeps the same shape as the paid memo: headline verdict, core metrics, opening cash view, stress tests, negotiation prompts, and evidence checks.
What the sample demonstrates
A business can pass the downside month and still be fragile if the opening cash buffer is too thin. That is why the memo highlights the opening capital stack, not just the rent burden.
Final view
Pause unless the opening capital position improves.
The model does not fail because the downside month burns cash; it fails because upfront cash needed exceeds available starting cash.
The priority is to renegotiate fit-out, deposit, rent-free terms, landlord contribution, or increase available starting cash before treating the site as viable.
Operator feedback
Would this help before signing a lease?
YieldLens is being improved around real operator questions. If the sample file misses something you would need before paying, send feedback.
Please do not send card details, full lease documents, or other confidential payment information.
Why the £49 file exists
The sample shows how the £49 file turns a quick snapshot into a decision memo.
The free check gives the quick snapshot. The £49 Standard Commercial Viability File turns that result into an organised decision memo for legal review, surveys, and professional due diligence.
How to use the result
Use the result to decide what evidence to gather next.
The sample is a separate illustrative case that shows the pressure-test, negotiation prompts, and due diligence structure used in the Standard commercial viability file. Use the result to identify weak assumptions, gather evidence, prepare questions for the agent, landlord, solicitor, or adviser, and decide whether the site is worth taking further.
For a cleaner PDF, turn off browser headers and footers in the print dialog.