Sell-Side Standalone Cost Model · FY25 Payroll Analysis

Payroll Gap
Deep Dive

DoorDash / Wolt Market Israel Divestiture — AI-Assisted Data Analysis

ADP FY25 Employer Cost
₪77M
1,437 employee records · actual cash paid
Standalone Model (Col BG · Adj FLC)
₪58.9M
631 census employees · FTE-adjusted basis
Census Full Methodology (Col BD)
₪78.1M
Same 631 employees · 2,080 hr basis + pools
CENSUS ADJ FLC (BG)  ₪58.9M
← UNEXPLAINED GAP →
₪0 ₪58.9M (model input today) ₪77–80M (ADP + TB actual)
−₪18–21M ILS
The standalone model's current headcount input understates FY25 actuals by ₪18–21M. The gap is not a data error — it is a methodology mismatch. This analysis explains every component.
SCROLL TO EXPLORE

Data Inventory

Three Sources, Three Different Numbers

Each data source measures a different population at a different point in time. The gap is not surprising once you understand what each one actually counts.

Source 1 — FY25 Annual Aggregate
ADP Payroll Register
Consolidated Payroll Registers Summary 04_07_2026.xlsx · Payrolls Registers Summary FY25
₪76.99M
Employer Cost · Full FY25 · Cash basis
Authoritative baseline
1,437 unique employees — one row per employee ID, annual totals aggregated across all 12 monthly payrolls
92 pay components — hourly base, salary, Saturday premiums, overtime, bonuses, employer NI & pension contributions
1,332 hourly / 77 monthly workers. 835 new starters in FY25 (~69/month avg)
No start/end dates in file — only binary Starter / Leaver flags. Cost Center column 99.6% null — unusable for function splits
Source 2 — Point in Time · March 19, 2026
Employee Census
All Census tab · also mirrored in All employee data tab of standalone model
631
Employees active as of census date
Model input — currently
566 hourly / 65 monthly. FTE% distribution: 50% (215 employees), 83.33% (277), 100% (126) — mean FTE 75.2%
123 employees hired Jan–Mar 2026 — post-FY25. Their annualized cost (~₪8.24M) appears in the model but they contributed zero to FY25 ADP
Only 244 of 631 were employed the full FY25 year. 264 joined during FY25, 123 joined in 2026
Model cell BG3 already tracks the gap: ₪80,047K − ₪58,850K = ₪21.2M ILS noted internally
Source 3 — GL Record
Trial Balance
TB Mapping tab · referenced as Overall Summary cell E11 in the standalone model
₪80.05M
FY25 actual headcount P&L charge
External validation anchor
ADP ₪77M reconciles to TB ₪80M — ~₪3M difference consistent with accruals (holiday 2.7M + RSU 2M + convalescence 0.5M pools partially explaining variance)
TB is the authoritative external figure. ADP → TB reconciliation is solid and team has confirmed this
The problem is not the ADP-to-TB gap. It is the census-based model (₪58.9M) vs both ADP and TB
Core Framing

These three sources are not reconcilable to a single number — they measure fundamentally different things. ADP measures cash paid to all 1,437 people who cycled through the year. The census measures 631 people alive on one specific day in March 2026. Trying to force a match is the wrong frame. The right question is: which methodology produces the most defensible forward-looking standalone cost?


Worker Census · FY25

Monthly Snapshots — Run Rate by Job Family

Twelve monthly Worker Census extracts (Jan–Dec 2025) from FY25 Snapshots for PWC were analyzed to test whether ADP’s 1,437 distinct FY25 IDs imply volatile staffing. Annualized base compensation uses: Monthly — Total Base Pay × 12; Hourly — FTE × 34 × 52 × hourly rate (Total Base Pay Amount). This is base pay only (not employer load, premiums, or benefits) — intended to show staffing shape, not to match ADP ₪77M cash cost.

FY25 stability (12 monthly files)

Headcount 569–654 (coefficient of variation 4.36%) · FTE 442–505 (CV 4.13%) · Annualized base comp ₪39.78–46.35M (CV 6.04%). By job family and (for Fulfillment) compensation grade, run rates stay in a tight band month to month — consistent with churn replacing roles rather than a wildly shifting operating headcount.

Total headcount & FTE (FY25)
Monthly census files — active employees with Monthly or Hourly base pay
Annualized base compensation (₪M)
Sum of per-employee annualized base (not total employer cost)
Headcount by job family (Fulfillment split by grade)
Actual headcount per monthly Worker Census snapshot. Cells from Feb–Dec are shaded vs prior month: teal = net adds, red = net reductions. Strong = |Δ| ≥ 15 or ≥ 12% of prior month; moderate = |Δ| ≥ 5 or ≥ 6%.
Job family / segment 01/2025 02/2025 03/2025 04/2025 05/2025 06/2025 07/2025 08/2025 09/2025 10/2025 11/2025 12/2025
Fulfillment · D0 431 418 413 414 391 429 466 446 435 445 445 456
Fulfillment · D1 114 113 115 118 117 120 124 123 124 128 128 123
Fulfillment · D5 29 30 29 28 27 26 29 29 27 27 30 30
Audience Marketing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
EA/Administrative 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
FP&A 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Facilities Team 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Growth Marketing 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4
Purchasing 5 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Strategy & Operations 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 12 12 12 12
Supply Chain Management 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8
MoM shading moderate increase strong increase moderate decrease strong decrease Jan column = baseline (no prior month in FY25 series).
Monthly totals (FY25)
Month Headcount FTE Ann. base ₪M
01/2025 604 467.19 39.909
02/2025 592 459.95 39.869
03/2025 589 455.76 39.777
04/2025 594 459.83 42.787
05/2025 569 442.47 41.520
06/2025 609 468.14 43.152
07/2025 654 505.32 46.259
08/2025 634 489.3 45.355
09/2025 623 479.13 44.661
10/2025 637 491.01 45.506
11/2025 640 493.84 46.083
12/2025 646 497.74 46.354
How to read this vs ADP 1,437

ADP counts every distinct employee ID with FY25 payroll activity — including short-tenure and churned roles. Monthly census snapshots count who is on roster each month at ~600–650 people with stable job-family / grade mix. The two measures answer different questions; snapshot stability does not contradict ADP churn — it shows the operating run rate did not swing proportionally to the 1,437 cumulative ID count.


Preliminary Hypotheses

Three Hypotheses — Why These Numbers Likely Differ

These three hypotheses are not additive — they are separate analytical lenses, each measuring the gap from a different angle against a different baseline. They are not findings. Some amounts are directly verifiable from the data; others are back-calculated estimates that depend on assumptions or record-matching between ADP and census. Each card below notes its data basis. This analysis is intended to identify the questions that need to be resolved, not to serve as a definitive reconciliation.

1

Transient Employees — In ADP But Not in Census

The ADP file has 1,437 employees. The March 19, 2026 census has 631. The difference — 924 people — worked during FY25 but were gone before that snapshot. Their costs appear in ADP and TB but are invisible to a single-point-in-time census model. High churn among the 1,437 IDs can suggest the “missing” mass is turnover — but that framing implies the operating workforce was unstable month to month.

Debunking lens — FY25 monthly census snapshots

Twelve monthly Worker Census files (Jan–Dec 2025) show stable run-rate headcount and FTE (approx. 569–654 employees, CV 4.36%; FTE CV 4.13%) and steady mix by job family — for Fulfillment, also by compensation grade (D0/D1/D5). Annualized base pay roll-up (per the snapshot methodology in the FY25 Snapshots section) moves in a ~₪39.8–46.4M band (CV 6.04%), not a sawtooth pattern. So: churn is real, but it largely replenishes seats within a relatively constant operating footprint — the ADP-vs-single-census gap is still about cohort definition (cumulative IDs vs. point-in-time roster), not proof that steady-state staffing was whipsawing throughout FY25.

718 FY25 Leavers → ₪14.5M (directly from ADP gross pay) ~207 Left Jan–Mar 2026 → ~₪9.8M (back-calculated; no departure dates in ADP) FY25 snapshots: stable run rate by job family / grade
~₪24.3M
partially estimated ▲
₪14.5M verified · ₪9.8M estimated
2

Variable & Premium Pay Not Captured in Any Static Model

Dark stores operate 7 days/week. Saturday pay at 150–200% premium rates is a legal requirement in Israel and a structural operating cost, not an exception. Overtime and holiday pay compound this. A census annualization of base rate × hours misses all of it.

Premium pay vs ADP total gross (FY25)

Verified FY25 premium pay in ADP (Saturday, OT, extra paid hours, holiday — the components above) totals ₪17.2M. Total gross pay in the FY25 ADP payroll register is approximately ₪66M. Expressing the premium bundle against that denominator: ~26.1% of ADP gross (₪17.2M ÷ ₪66M). That anchors the “missing” premium layer to the same ADP gross universe as the roll-forward, rather than to census-modeled base.

Saturday premiums: ₪8.8M Overtime 125/150%: ₪3.3M Extra paid hours: ₪2.9M Holiday pay: ₪2.1M FY25 actuals — directly from ADP pay components ~26% of ~₪66M ADP gross (FY25)
₪17.2M
FY25 verified actuals ▲
Forward amount uncertain — see limitations
3

Q1 2026 New Hires — In Census But Not in FY25

123 employees hired January–March 2026 appear in the census and their full annualized costs (~₪8.24M) are included in the model's BG column. But they contributed zero to FY25 ADP. This partially offsets the gap when comparing to FY25 actuals — but inflates the model for forward-looking purposes relative to what was actually paid.

43–48 new hires/month in early 2026 BG overstates vs FY25 ADP by this amount Directly verifiable — census hire dates + BG column sums
₪8.2M
directly verified ▼
Count and cost directly from census data
Key Takeaway

These observations don't produce a clean waterfall that sums to the gap — they overlap and measure different things. What they collectively demonstrate is that the gap is structural and expected, not a data error. A census-based model will always understate actual payroll for this type of business given high-turnover hourly workforce, 7-day operations, and Israeli premium-pay requirements. The next step is resolving which of these factors should be addressed in the standalone assumption — and how.


Cost Methodology Comparison

Two Ways to Annualize Hourly Worker Cost

The model contains two columns that compute hourly worker annual cost differently. Each reflects a distinct methodological choice. Understanding what each includes — and what neither captures — is the basis for an informed standalone cost decision.

Column BG — Adj FLC (Current Model Input)

Formula: Column BE (Adj Base Pay) + Column BF (Adj Benefits)
BE = IF("Hourly",
  FTE% × 34 hrs/wk × 52 wks × hourly_rate,
  FTE% × monthly_salary × 12)

Deliberately weights cost by each employee's contracted FTE% — the correct approach for reflecting that not all 631 census employees are full-time. Accurately captures base pay for part-time workers on a contracted-hours basis. What it cannot capture: the premium pay multiplier (Saturday 150–200%, overtime) that applies to those scheduled shifts once the store is open 7 days.

Hourly workers
566
Adj Base total
₪44.5M
Adj FLC total
₪58.9M

Column BD — Total FLC 2 (Full-Year Equivalent Basis)

Formula: Column U (Annualized Base) + NI 6% + fixed pools
U = IF("Hourly",
  hourly_rate × 2,080 hrs,
  monthly_salary × 12)

BD = U + NI(6%) + Holiday(2.7M) + RSU(2M) + Conv(0.5M)

Applies 2,080 hrs/year to all hourly workers, ignoring FTE%. Happens to land close to ADP actuals numerically — but for a different reason: it over-annualizes part-time workers' base hours, which roughly offsets the premium pay and transient employee costs that ADP captures but neither census column includes. The near-match is coincidental, not a methodological improvement.

Hourly base (col U)
₪47.4M
FLC 1 total
₪69.1M
FLC 2 total
₪78.1M
Metric / Population
ADP FY25
Census BG
Census BD
Δ BD vs ADP
Total payroll cost
₪76.99M
₪58.85M
₪78.07M
+₪1.1M
Employee population
1,437
631
631
Hours basis (hourly workers)
Actual shifts
1,768 hrs
2,080 hrs
Near match
Includes premium pay (Saturday, OT)
Yes ✓
No ✗
No ✗
Premium pay included
Yes ✓
No ✗
No ✗
open question for standalone

Workforce Analysis

The Real Employee Picture

The business ran with 1,437 people in FY25. The census sees only 631 of them. Understanding who the 924 "missing" employees are — and why they matter — is the foundation of a defensible standalone headcount assumption.

1,437
FY25 ADP Employees
631
March 2026 Census
924
In ADP, Not in Census
719
Active at Dec 31, 2025
Employee Flow — FY25 Through Census
How 1,437 ADP records relate to 631 census records
FTE% Distribution — Census (631 Employees)
Most "headcount" is not full-time — mean FTE is 75.2%
FY25 Leaver Breakdown
718
employees marked as Leavers in FY25 — average cost per leaver: ₪20,186 ILS (partial year). Total cost: ₪14.5M ILS.

Additional 207 employees were active through FY25 but left before the March 2026 census — contributing ₪9.8M more.

Combined: 925 transient employees driving ₪24.3M — the single largest gap component.
New Hire Velocity
Pre-2025 employees (still in census)
244
38.7%
FY25 hires (in census, partial year)
264
41.8%
2026 hires (not in FY25 ADP at all)
123
19.5%
FY25 ADP starters (joined during year)
835
~69/month average
Headcount Anchor

719 employees were active at Dec 31, 2025 — a better standalone anchor than 631 (March 2026 census). Benchmarks support 700–750: 25–30 dark stores × 15–25 employees = 375–750 range.

FY25 Variable Pay Components (in ADP — Not Modeled in Census)
₪17.2M in premium pay is structural to 7-day dark store operations · entirely absent from census-based build

Analytical Conclusion

The Standalone Model Should Use ₪78M, Not ₪59M

The data supports a defensible path to ₪77–80M as the forward-looking standalone headcount cost. Here is how to structure the argument.

Open Question
1

Determine How to Handle Structural Premium Pay

The FTE%-adjusted Adj FLC is a deliberate and valid choice for base pay. The remaining gap to ADP actuals is primarily the ₪17.2M in Saturday premiums, overtime, and holiday pay — structural costs of running dark stores 7 days/week under Israeli labor law. The standalone model needs an explicit view on whether these costs belong in the forward-looking baseline.

Core question: is premium pay a structural standalone cost?
Narrative
2

Frame Headcount as 700–750, Not 631

The census 631 is a March 2026 point-in-time snapshot. ADP shows 719 active employees at Dec 31, 2025. Benchmarks (25–30 stores × 15–25 staff) support 450–750. The running average workforce is materially higher than the census implies — and the business is growing.

Supports: ₪80M run rate from a 700–750 stable headcount
Data Request
3

Request Start/End Dates from DoorDash

The ADP file currently has no hire or termination dates — only binary Starter/Leaver flags. Start and end dates would allow calculation of exact person-months worked, a true running-average FTE count for FY25, and a precise census-to-ADP bridge.

Transforms hypothesis into validated proof
"

The census captures 631 employees as of a single day in March 2026, but 1,437 employees were on payroll at some point in FY25. The ₪77M reflects actual cash paid to all of them, including premium rates for Saturday and overtime operations that are structural to this business model. The correct forward-looking cost for a business of this size is ~₪78M — not the ₪50M implied by annualizing only the current census headcount at base rates."

Key Takeaway · Project Walnut · April 10, 2026

Analytical Boundaries

What This Analysis Can — and Cannot — Establish

The conclusions above are directional, not definitive. Several key numbers rest on assumptions or back-calculations that better data would either confirm or revise. These limitations should be disclosed when presenting to DoorDash or the client.

!

The "207 Post-FY25 Leavers" Figure Is Back-Calculated, Not Observed

The claim that 207 employees were active at Dec 31, 2025 but absent from the March 2026 census is derived as: (719 ADP year-end actives) minus (census employees who were also in FY25 ≈ 631 − 123 Q1 hires = 508), yielding ~211. The ADP file has no departure dates — we cannot confirm when those ~207 people left or what they individually cost. The ₪9.8M attributed to this group is estimated proportionally, not computed from individual records.

No termination dates in ADP Derived figure, not directly observed
What would fix it
Start/end dates from DoorDash for all ADP employees
!

ADP-to-Census Bridge Still Requires Hire/Term Dates

Update (this revised analysis): Twelve monthly Worker Census snapshots (Jan–Dec 2025) now provide month-by-month active headcount and FTE by job family and Fulfillment grade — see the FY25 Snapshots section. What remains incomplete is matching those roster rows to ADP employee IDs without hire/termination dates in ADP. The 719 year-end ADP actives and March 2026 census still do not automatically reconcile to each monthly file at the person-ID level.

Monthly census files: FY25 run rate now observable ADP: still only Starter/Leaver flags — no dates
What would fix it
Monthly census snapshots (Jan–Dec 2025) or ADP hire/term dates
!

The ₪17.2M Premium Pay Figure Is FY25 Actual — Forward-Looking Amount Is Uncertain

Saturday premiums, overtime, and holiday pay totalling ₪17.2M are verified FY25 actuals from the ADP file. However, the amount in a standalone scenario depends on store count, staffing patterns, and any contractual changes post-separation. If the business opens additional stores, premium pay will increase. If operating hours or scheduling practices change, it could decrease. The ₪17.2M is the right reference point, but it should be presented as a historical baseline, not a confirmed forward-looking cost.

₪17.2M is FY25 verified actuals Standalone forward amount depends on operating model continuity
What would fix it
Confirmation from DoorDash that 7-day operation model and store count continue in standalone
Bottom Line on Confidence

The directional conclusion — that the right standalone cost is ~₪77–80M, not ~₪59M — is well-supported by the data and unlikely to change materially with better information. The specific mechanisms explaining the gap are partially derived and should not be presented as a definitive reconciliation. Until start/end date data is received from DoorDash, the analysis should be framed as: "the gap is structural and explainable; here is the hypothesis; here is what we need to confirm it."


Next Steps

What to Do From Here

Prioritized actions for the engagement team. Data requests to DoorDash are the critical path to converting this analytical hypothesis into fully validated proof.

Model Changes
P1 · Now

Decide Whether Structural Premium Pay Belongs in the Standalone Baseline

The ₪17.2M in Saturday premiums, overtime, and holiday pay in FY25 ADP reflects the statutory cost of 7-day operations in Israel — not a one-time anomaly. If the standalone business runs the same operating model, some level of premium pay is a recurring cost. The current model baseline does not carry this explicitly.

P1 · Now

Flag the 123 Q1 2026 Hires

These employees are in BD but not in FY25 ADP. Separately disclose: "Census includes 123 employees hired post-FY25 whose costs are not yet reflected in historical payroll." This prevents a false reconciliation attempt.

P2 · This Week

Update Standalone Headcount Assumption to 700–750

Replace the 631 census headcount anchor with 719 (Dec 31, 2025 active count) as the FY25 run-rate anchor, trending to 700–750 as the stable standalone assumption. Supported by benchmark data and ADP history.

Data Requests to DoorDash
P1 · Critical

Start and End Dates for All ADP Employees

The single highest-value data request. Would allow exact calculation of person-months worked per employee, a validated running-average FTE for FY25, and a precise numerical bridge from census to ADP — converting this analysis from directional to definitive.

P2 · Helpful

Monthly Census Snapshots from FY25

Alternative to start/end dates. Monthly headcount as of Jan–Dec 2025 would allow direct computation of the running-average employee count and validate whether the business ran at ~700–800 employees throughout the year.

P3 · Supporting

Breakdown of Saturday / Overtime Premium Pay by Function

The ADP file shows ₪17.2M in premium pay but the Cost Center column is 99.6% null. Function-level premium pay allocation would allow a more precise standalone cost per functional tab, rather than estimating it as a percentage of base pay.

Context

Note: 123 Q1 2026 Hires Are in the Census But Not in FY25 ADP

These employees appear in the current census and their annualized costs (~₪8.24M) are included in the model, but they contributed zero to FY25 payroll. Worth flagging explicitly when comparing the model's forward-looking baseline against FY25 actuals to avoid a false reconciliation attempt.