{"id":20,"date":"2026-06-01T06:22:18","date_gmt":"2026-06-01T05:22:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/2026\/06\/01\/route-assumptions-costing-uk-logistics-operations\/"},"modified":"2026-06-01T06:22:18","modified_gmt":"2026-06-01T05:22:18","slug":"route-assumptions-costing-uk-logistics-operations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/2026\/06\/01\/route-assumptions-costing-uk-logistics-operations\/","title":{"rendered":"Route Assumptions Costing UK Logistics Operations"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Most transport operations in the UK are running on route logic that was built years ago, tested once, and never seriously questioned again. The assumptions baked into those plans, about vehicle capacity, travel windows, depot sequences, and load groupings, quietly drain six and seven figures from annual budgets. This is not a reporting problem. It is a decision-making problem. And for Operations Directors who believe their routing is broadly optimised, the data consistently shows otherwise. <strong>Route optimisation UK logistics<\/strong> is not just a technology question. It is a question of whether the rules your planners follow actually reflect how your network operates today.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"table-of-contents\">Table of Contents<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#quick-takeaways\">Quick Takeaways<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#why-route-assumptions-go-untested-for-years\">Why Route Assumptions Go Untested for Years<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#what-untested-assumptions-actually-cost\">What Untested Assumptions Actually Cost<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#the-most-common-flawed-assumptions-in-uk-transport-planning\">The Most Common Flawed Assumptions in UK Transport Planning<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#how-to-identify-cost-leaks-without-replacing-your-systems\">How to Identify Cost Leaks Without Replacing Your Systems<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#comparing-approaches-to-route-assumption-testing\">Comparing Approaches to Route Assumption Testing<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#what-genuine-logistics-cost-reduction-looks-like\">What Genuine Logistics Cost Reduction Looks Like<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#frequently-asked-questions\">Frequently Asked Questions<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#references\">References<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"quick-takeaways\">Quick Takeaways<\/h2>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Key Insight<\/th>\n<th>Explanation<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Untested route assumptions are not minor inefficiencies<\/td>\n<td>In practice, outdated planning logic regularly accounts for \u00a3100,000 or more in avoidable annual costs for mid-sized fleets.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Most cost leaks are invisible in standard reporting<\/td>\n<td>KPI dashboards show delivery performance, not whether the route logic itself is the cheapest way to achieve that performance.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Planners inherit assumptions without questioning them<\/td>\n<td>Route rules passed between team members accumulate outdated logic, especially when staff turnover obscures the original reasoning.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Load utilisation is the most under-examined variable<\/td>\n<td>A route that looks efficient by mileage can still be deeply wasteful if vehicles are running at 60-70% capacity as a structural norm.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>System replacement is not required to fix the problem<\/td>\n<td>The issue is decision logic, not software. Changing the rules within existing systems produces savings faster and with less disruption.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Five days of live data collection outperforms months of internal review<\/td>\n<td>Deploying hardware inside a live transport operation captures the gap between what the plan says and what actually happens on the ground.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Transport route planning UK has a structural blind spot<\/td>\n<td>Most operators benchmark themselves against their own historical performance, not against what is operationally achievable with the same assets.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2 id=\"why-route-assumptions-go-untested-for-years\">Why Route Assumptions Go Untested for Years<\/h2>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/assets.rankpilot.dev\/cdn-cgi\/image\/width=1024,height=1024,fit=cover,quality=50,format=webp\/assets\/1780291163418-e605424e.png\" alt=\"Operations manager reviewing route planning documents and data on computer screens\"><\/figure>\n<p>The reason is not negligence. It is that route planning logic is self-concealing. When routes are delivering on time and customer complaints are low, there is no visible signal that the underlying logic is inefficient. The operation looks like it is working, so no one examines the mechanism producing the results.<\/p>\n<p>In practice, planning rules accumulate over time through a combination of historical workarounds, individual planner preferences, and client-specific agreements that were never formally reviewed again. A depot sequencing rule added in 2017 to handle a temporary road restriction might still be running in 2024. A vehicle allocation rule built around a contract that ended three years ago can persist indefinitely if no one traces it back to its origin.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Transport route planning UK<\/strong> has a structural blind spot built into how planning teams operate. Routes are validated against delivery performance, not against a model of what optimal performance would look like with the same assets. This means an operation can achieve 97% on-time delivery while running 25% more vehicle movements than necessary, and every dashboard in the business will show green.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Pro tip:<\/strong> Ask your planning team to identify the five oldest routing rules still in active use. If they cannot name them or explain the original reasoning, you almost certainly have untested assumptions embedded in your daily operations.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/assets.rankpilot.dev\/cdn-cgi\/image\/width=1024,height=1024,fit=cover,quality=50,format=webp\/assets\/1780291163418-e605424e.png\" alt=\"Image is being generated...\"><\/figure>\n<h3 id=\"the-role-of-staff-turnover-in-compounding-the-problem\">The role of staff turnover in compounding the problem<\/h3>\n<p>Experienced planners carry institutional knowledge about why certain rules exist. When they leave, the rules remain but the rationale disappears. New planners inherit the logic as fixed constraints rather than historical decisions, which means the next opportunity to question them is never scheduled.<\/p>\n<p>McKinsey research on operational efficiency consistently highlights that undocumented process logic is one of the hardest cost categories to address because it is not recorded anywhere as a cost. It is simply treated as the way things are done.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"why-technology-investment-does-not-automatically-fix-this\">Why technology investment does not automatically fix this<\/h3>\n<p>A common mistake is assuming that deploying a new transport management system will reset flawed assumptions. In practice, implementation teams configure the new system using existing planning rules as the baseline. The software changes. The logic does not. This is why operations that have recently invested heavily in TMS or route optimisation platforms frequently still carry the same structural cost leaks as before.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"what-untested-assumptions-actually-cost\">What Untested Assumptions Actually Cost<\/h2>\n<p>The financial impact of <strong>route assumptions transport<\/strong> errors is not speculative. It shows up in measurable operational data once someone looks for it. The difficulty is that it rarely appears as a single line item. It is distributed across fuel costs, driver hours, vehicle utilisation rates, and maintenance intervals in ways that look individually unremarkable.<\/p>\n<p>A fleet running 15 vehicles where the planning logic consistently underutilises each vehicle by 20-25% of capacity is effectively operating the equivalent of three to four surplus vehicle movements per day. At average UK heavy goods operating costs, which the Department for Transport estimates at roughly \u00a31.50 to \u00a32.00 per kilometre for articulated vehicles when all costs are included, this produces substantial avoidable expenditure before a single inefficient route mile is counted.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>&#8220;The biggest cost in logistics is not the cost you can see. It is the cost that your planning system treats as normal.&#8221; &#8211; Operational observation documented across multiple UK fleet assessments by transport efficiency consultants.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h3 id=\"where-the-money-actually-disappears\">Where the money actually disappears<\/h3>\n<p>The three areas where untested route assumptions produce the largest cost leaks are fleet allocation logic, load sequencing rules, and time window assumptions. Fleet allocation logic determines which vehicle type goes to which route, and errors here directly drive fuel and driver cost per delivery unit. Load sequencing rules affect how many stops can be made per run before a vehicle must return. Time window assumptions, particularly those inherited from customer contracts that have since been renegotiated, can force artificial constraints on route design that add significant mileage.<\/p>\n<p>According to Statista data on UK logistics operating costs, fuel and driver wages together account for over 60% of total fleet operating expenditure. Inefficiencies in routing logic that affect these two cost categories therefore have a multiplied financial impact compared to inefficiencies in lower-cost areas.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"the-most-common-flawed-assumptions-in-uk-transport-planning\">The Most Common Flawed Assumptions in UK Transport Planning<\/h2>\n<p>Having examined transport operations across multiple sectors, certain flawed assumptions appear with enough consistency to be treated as structural patterns rather than isolated errors.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"fixed-depot-sequencing-that-ignores-real-time-load-variation\">Fixed depot sequencing that ignores real-time load variation<\/h3>\n<p>Many operations plan depot sequences based on average load profiles rather than actual daily load variation. The sequence is optimised for a typical Tuesday but applied without adjustment on a Monday with 40% more volume or a Friday with a different customer mix. This produces systematic inefficiency that does not show up in route completion data because the routes still complete. They just complete wastefully.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"time-window-assumptions-built-around-outdated-customer-agreements\">Time window assumptions built around outdated customer agreements<\/h3>\n<p>Customer delivery windows are often wider in practice than they appear in the planning system. A window that was originally set at a two-hour slot may have informally expanded over years of operational relationship, but the planning system still constrains routes as if the original window applies. This artificial tightness forces additional vehicle movements that serve no operational purpose.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"vehicle-type-allocation-rules-that-predate-fleet-renewal\">Vehicle type allocation rules that predate fleet renewal<\/h3>\n<p>Fleet composition changes over time. When older vehicles are replaced with newer models of different capacity or fuel profile, planning rules built around the old fleet characteristics are often carried forward. An allocation rule that made sense for a 12-tonne vehicle may produce significant inefficiency when applied to a 15-tonne replacement, particularly in load consolidation decisions.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Pro tip:<\/strong> Cross-reference your current vehicle allocation rules against your fleet renewal records from the past three years. Any rule that predates a major fleet change should be treated as an untested assumption until validated against current asset characteristics.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/assets.rankpilot.dev\/cdn-cgi\/image\/width=1024,height=1024,fit=cover,quality=50,format=webp\/assets\/1780291250160-456e0cc7.png\" alt=\"Image is being generated...\"><\/figure>\n<h3 id=\"route-mileage-benchmarks-based-on-historical-performance-rather-than-network-potential\">Route mileage benchmarks based on historical performance rather than network potential<\/h3>\n<p>A common mistake is benchmarking route efficiency against last year&#8217;s performance rather than against what the network is capable of achieving. This creates a self-referential loop where gradual deterioration in route efficiency is invisible because the baseline moves with it. An operation can consistently beat its own previous benchmarks while drifting further from genuine optimisation.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"how-to-identify-cost-leaks-without-replacing-your-systems\">How to Identify Cost Leaks Without Replacing Your Systems<\/h2>\n<p>The most effective method for identifying cost leaks from untested route assumptions is live operational data collection, not retrospective analysis of historical reports. Historical reports reflect the outcomes of flawed decisions. Live data captures the decisions themselves, including the gap between planned routes and actual vehicle behaviour, and between planned load utilisation and real departure weights.<\/p>\n<p>This is precisely the model Flow Dynamics uses. Proprietary hardware is deployed within a live transport operation for five days, capturing data at the decision level rather than the outcome level. The result is a picture of where planning logic diverges from operational reality, and a quantified estimate of the annual saving available by correcting that divergence. The process requires no system replacement, no operational disruption, and no commitment beyond the assessment itself. If the identified savings do not reach at least \u00a3100,000 annually, the client pays no fee.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"why-internal-reviews-consistently-underestimate-the-problem\">Why internal reviews consistently underestimate the problem<\/h3>\n<p>Internal operational reviews have a structural limitation: they are conducted by the same team that created or inherited the assumptions being reviewed. This produces unconscious anchoring, where the review validates existing logic rather than challenging it. The data consistently shows that external assessment of the same operations identifies cost leaks that internal reviews missed, not because the internal team is incompetent, but because they are too close to the operational norms to question them.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"the-specific-data-points-that-reveal-route-assumption-failures\">The specific data points that reveal route assumption failures<\/h3>\n<p>Four data points, when examined together, reveal the presence of untested assumption failures with high reliability. These are vehicle departure weight versus vehicle capacity, actual stop sequence versus planned stop sequence, driver idle time at delivery points, and fuel consumption versus modelled consumption for the route profile. When any two of these diverge systematically, a flawed planning assumption is almost always the cause.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"comparing-approaches-to-route-assumption-testing\">Comparing Approaches to Route Assumption Testing<\/h2>\n<p>There are three main approaches that UK logistics operators use when they decide to examine their route assumptions. Each has materially different implications for the quality of insight produced and the operational disruption involved.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Approach<\/th>\n<th>What It Examines<\/th>\n<th>Limitations for Identifying Real Cost Leaks<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Internal operational review using existing TMS data<\/td>\n<td>Historical route completion rates, planned versus actual mileage, driver hours logged<\/td>\n<td>Only examines outcomes, not decision logic. Cannot identify flawed assumptions that consistently produce completed routes. Anchored to internal benchmarks rather than network potential.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Third-party TMS configuration audit<\/td>\n<td>System settings, routing parameters, vehicle profile entries in the planning software<\/td>\n<td>Identifies mismatches between software settings and stated policy, but does not measure the gap between planned routes and live operational behaviour. Does not capture informal planning rules that exist outside the system.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Live operational data collection with proprietary hardware<\/td>\n<td>Real-time vehicle behaviour, actual load utilisation at departure, genuine stop dwell times, actual versus planned sequence adherence<\/td>\n<td>Requires external deployment and five to seven days of data collection. Investment required upfront, though performance-based fee models eliminate financial risk if minimum savings thresholds are not met.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>The data consistently shows that internal reviews and TMS audits identify configuration errors and reporting gaps. Live operational data collection identifies the cost leaks that those methods cannot reach, because it captures the decision layer rather than the reporting layer.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"what-genuine-logistics-cost-reduction-looks-like\">What Genuine Logistics Cost Reduction Looks Like<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Logistics cost reduction<\/strong> achieved through route assumption correction differs fundamentally from cost reduction achieved through procurement renegotiation or headcount adjustment. It does not require changing suppliers, altering service levels, or reducing operational capacity. It produces savings by making existing assets work at the level they are theoretically capable of, rather than at the constrained level that inherited planning logic has imposed on them.<\/p>\n<p>In practice, the savings fall into three categories. First, vehicle movement reduction through improved load consolidation, which reduces fuel and driver costs without reducing deliveries. Second, fleet allocation correction, which matches vehicle type to route demand more accurately and reduces both under and over-capacity movements. Third, time window rule correction, which removes artificial constraints that force unnecessary mileage and driver hours.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"why-100-000-is-a-conservative-floor-not-an-aspirational-target\">Why \u00a3100,000 is a conservative floor, not an aspirational target<\/h3>\n<p>For any fleet operating more than ten vehicles on UK routes, \u00a3100,000 in annual avoidable costs from flawed route assumptions is not an ambitious estimate. It is a conservative floor. A single vehicle making unnecessary movements three times per week across a full operating year, at realistic UK fleet operating costs, approaches that figure on its own. Most operations have multiple overlapping assumption failures running simultaneously, which is why the savings identified in live operational assessments typically exceed this threshold rather than approach it.<\/p>\n<p>The Freight Transport Association, now Logistics UK, has consistently documented that transport cost management in the UK is dominated by visible cost categories while structural planning inefficiencies remain unquantified in the majority of operations. This is not a fringe observation. It reflects the operational reality across the sector.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"what-changes-and-what-stays-the-same\">What changes and what stays the same<\/h3>\n<p>A common concern from Operations Directors is that addressing route assumption failures will require wholesale changes to planning processes or system replacement. In practice, the corrections are almost always implemented as rule changes within existing systems and planning processes. The operation continues. The planning team continues. The changes are made to the logic governing their decisions, not to the infrastructure supporting those decisions.<\/p>\n<p>This is the distinction that separates genuine <strong>logistics cost reduction<\/strong> from the kind of transformation projects that consume eighteen months and a seven-figure budget before producing any measurable return. Fixing decision logic is inherently lower risk and faster to implement than replacing the systems that execute those decisions.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"frequently-asked-questions\">Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n<h3 id=\"how-do-untested-route-assumptions-differ-from-normal-planning-inefficiencies\">How do untested route assumptions differ from normal planning inefficiencies?<\/h3>\n<p>Normal planning inefficiencies are visible in operational data and can be addressed by planners using standard review processes. Untested route assumptions are different because they are embedded in the rules that govern planning decisions, not in individual plans. This means they are systematically applied across every route and every planning cycle, which amplifies their financial impact and makes them invisible to standard performance review processes.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"what-size-of-fleet-does-this-problem-apply-to\">What size of fleet does this problem apply to?<\/h3>\n<p>In practice, untested route assumptions become financially significant at around ten vehicles or more operating regular UK routes. Below that threshold, the planning logic is usually simple enough that assumptions are visible to planners without specialist analysis. Above ten vehicles, route logic complexity increases to the point where embedded assumptions can run unexamined indefinitely.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"can-our-existing-tms-identify-these-cost-leaks\">Can our existing TMS identify these cost leaks?<\/h3>\n<p>Most transport management systems can report on route outcomes but cannot identify whether the planning logic producing those outcomes is optimal. The system executes the rules it is given. It does not evaluate whether those rules represent the most cost-efficient way to achieve the same delivery performance. External data collection that captures live operational behaviour is required to identify the gap between current logic and achievable optimisation.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"how-long-does-a-live-operational-assessment-take\">How long does a live operational assessment take?<\/h3>\n<p>A rigorous live assessment requires five days of data collection using hardware deployed within the active transport operation. This captures sufficient variation across operating days to distinguish structural assumption failures from day-specific anomalies. The assessment produces a quantified savings estimate with identified root causes, not a generic set of recommendations.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"is-it-possible-to-fix-route-assumption-failures-without-changing-our-planning-software\">Is it possible to fix route assumption failures without changing our planning software?<\/h3>\n<p>Yes, and this is the standard outcome. Route assumption failures are logic problems, not software problems. They are corrected by changing the planning rules and vehicle allocation parameters within existing systems, not by replacing those systems. The correction process does not require operational disruption because it targets the decision layer, not the execution infrastructure.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"what-makes-transport-route-planning-uk-different-from-other-markets\">What makes transport route planning UK different from other markets?<\/h3>\n<p>UK route planning operates under a specific combination of road network constraints, driver hours regulations, urban access restrictions, and customer delivery window expectations that create more complexity than many comparable European markets. This complexity means that planning assumptions that were reasonable when first established can become significantly suboptimal as any one of these factors changes, and the rate of change across all of them has increased substantially over the past five years.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"how-does-flow-dynamics-differ-from-standard-route-optimisation-consultancies\">How does Flow Dynamics differ from standard route optimisation consultancies?<\/h3>\n<p>Most route optimisation consultancies focus on configuring or recommending software platforms. Flow Dynamics focuses exclusively on the decision logic layer, using live operational data collection rather than retrospective analysis. The performance-based fee model, where no fee is charged if the identified savings do not reach at least \u00a3100,000 annually, is a direct reflection of confidence in the methodology rather than a marketing position.<\/p>\n<p>If you are currently reviewing your transport route planning assumptions or have run an internal efficiency review that did not produce the savings you expected, share what you found and what you think was missed.<\/p>\n<p>We would love your feedback and any insights you would share with others. What perspective would you add?<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"references\">References<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/organisations\/department-for-transport\">UK Department for Transport: official data on freight and fleet operating costs in the United Kingdom<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.mckinsey.com\">McKinsey and Company: research on operational efficiency, undocumented process logic, and supply chain cost management<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.statista.com\">Statista: UK logistics sector operating cost breakdowns and fleet expenditure data<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.logistics.org.uk\">Logistics UK: industry benchmarks and operational efficiency guidance for UK freight transport operators<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\">Forbes: analysis of transport and supply chain cost reduction strategies and fleet management decisions<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Untested route assumptions cost UK logistics operations six figures annually. Learn how to identify and fix the planning logic draining your transport budget.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":19,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_wpscppro_dont_share_socialmedia":false,"_wpscppro_custom_social_share_image":0,"_facebook_share_type":"","_twitter_share_type":"","_linkedin_share_type":"","_pinterest_share_type":"","_linkedin_share_type_page":"","_instagram_share_type":"","_medium_share_type":"","_threads_share_type":"","_google_business_share_type":"","_selected_social_profile":[],"_wpsp_enable_custom_social_template":false,"_wpsp_social_scheduling":{"enabled":false,"datetime":null,"platforms":[],"status":"template_only","dateOption":"today","timeOption":"now","customDays":"","customHours":"","customDate":"","customTime":"","schedulingType":"absolute"},"_wpsp_active_default_template":true},"categories":[1],"tags":[21,20,19,22],"class_list":["post-20","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorised","tag-logistics-cost-reduction","tag-route-assumptions-transport","tag-route-optimisation-uk-logistics","tag-transport-route-planning-uk"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/19"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}