Anjali ZelqethiChief Technology Officer · Essays & perspective

Chief Technology Officer
India
Practice / Perspective

The decimal was precise; the chosen rule was wrong

Anjali Zelqethi / Published perspectives
No.The ideaSubject / reading
01

A precise calculation can still make the wrong decision

Calculation ownership
5 min read
02

The convenient default must belong to the client receiving it

Client configuration
5 min read
03

A rollback promise must account for the records left behind

Release reversibility
5 min read
Portrait of Anjali Zelqethi

The practitioner

Anjali Zelqethi

The discrepancy was one hundredth in a synthetic example, but the disagreement was about the rule rather than numerical precision. A shared component rounded after adding line amounts; the approved client rule rounded each line first. I had supported the component because it removed repeated implementation and appeared to make the system more consistent. It had also made a business choice that belonged to the client. The example changed how I ask engineers to explain an abstraction: which differences does it preserve, and which does it silently decide are unimportant?

Open to Board appointments

Start a conversation
  • 01 / Calculation semantics under approved client rules
  • 02 / Client-scoped configuration without accidental inheritance
  • 03 / Diagnostic evidence with proportionate content
  • 04 / Data-compatible release reversal
Software supplied to the insurance sector
22 insurer clients
260 employees and ₹148 crore FY26 supplier revenue; no premium
Engineering organisation
57 engineers
Six leads and eight contractors counted separately
Industrial software to insurance platforms
26 years
Five contiguous appointments from July 2000; no statutory seat

The decimal was precise; the chosen rule was wrong

Three synthetic line amounts of 12.345 produce 37.05 when each is rounded half-up to two decimal places before addition. Adding first and applying the same rounding to the total produces 37.04. Both calculations can be implemented precisely. Only one matches the rule the authorised client has specified. I had approved a shared calculation component before asking enough about that distinction. The resulting test failure was a reminder that a correct operation is not always the correct business operation.

I am Anjali Zelqethi, CTO of the fictional Qelvazi Insurance Systems in Ranchi, originally from Palakkad. We supply software to 22 insurer clients; we do not underwrite insurance. The company has 260 employees and recorded ₹148 crore revenue for FY ending March 2026. Founders hold 44%, an institutional investor 46% and an employee vehicle 10%. I have no personal holding or statutory seat. My engineering organisation has 57 employees through six leads and eight separately counted contractors, within ₹12.8 crore FY2026–27 operating expense and ₹3.6 crore approved change investment.

Joseph Belzethi leads the company, and Reema Navqeri owns engineering acceptance. Client insurers retain the professional decisions their systems implement. My cases concern the engineering evidence we owe them: a calculation must follow the approved rounding stage, a default must not arrive from another client's configuration, diagnostic traces should not carry unnecessary policy fields, and an older application must be able to interpret records created before a rollback. Each choice has an expense or a limitation that belongs beside the technical result.

The stage of rounding changed the answer

Thirty-seven of 500 synthetic calculation fixtures differed from the approved map. After a ₹54 lakh programme, all 500 matched that specified map; no actual customer overcharge was inferred.

A default needed to belong to the client using it

Twenty-three of 180 synthetic configuration scenarios inherited the wrong default. Explicit client-scoped configuration cost ₹88 lakh and added eight milliseconds at the stated benchmark percentile.

Rollback included the records already written

Only 29 of forty initial rollback scenarios preserved compatibility. Revised sequencing supported 38, with two features deferred and a four-week delay retained in the account.

Current focus

Keeping shared insurance-software components useful without allowing shared implementation to decide client-specific business rules.

Conversations I welcome

A first external board role where directors want scrutiny of software commitments, engineering evidence and the responsibilities retained by a supplier.

Beyond the page

The record behind the perspective.

Formation

  • Bachelor of Engineering in Computer EngineeringMerqovi Engineering College · 2000
Anjali explained the two deferred features alongside the 38 successful rollback scenarios. That let us decide on the narrower release with its four-week delay visible, rather than assume that restoring the old application would restore the whole service.
Joseph BelzethiCEO, Qelvazi Insurance Systems; fictional colleague
The full record ↗

Contact

A first external board role where directors want scrutiny of software commitments, engineering evidence and the responsibilities retained by a supplier.

  • Board appointments
Write to Anjali Contact page