Agreed access boundaries
Define who can access which information and how it may be handled before implementation.
Purpose-built software for financial and advisory firms
We build and manage private software for boutique banks, private equity firms, and advisory teams whose work runs through complex files. It fits the folders, rules, and review process your team already knows.
From the first working version through the changes that follow.
One discrepancy held for reviewAdjusted earnings need the team’s judgment.
Built around
specialist work
Inside the workflow
A figure becomes useful once you know which entity, period, and version it refers to. We build those checks into the workflow, alongside the output and review process your team needs.
Find documents across years of engagement folders, with the original location and uncertain versions in view.
Explore this workflowCIM_v2 identifies the same year. Its name alone does not establish which version to use.
Illustrative paths. Authoritative files stay in place.
/Engagements/Company_A/02_Financials/Company_A_CIM.pdf
/Engagements/Company_A/Received/Sept/Company_A_CIM_v2.pdf
/Engagements/Company_A/02_Financials/FY2025_statements.pdf
Bring the figures into your deal template and keep the supporting pages close enough to check.
Explore this workflow| Requested field | FY2025 | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 84.2 | CIM · p. 24 |
| Reported EBITDA | 12.6 | CIM · p. 25 |
| Adjusted EBITDA | Review | QoE · p. 18 |
Adjusted EBITDA is held for reviewConflicting adjustment totals. No value accepted.
Each mapped field keeps its reporting period, units, and source reference in the workbook.
CIM_v2 remains unconfirmed in the document register. It does not silently replace the selected source.
12.6 reported + 1.5 / 1.2 in adjustments. The bridge needs confirmation.
QoE reports adjusted EBITDA of 14.1; the operating model shows 13.8. Confirm the adjustment bridge before using either figure.
Awaiting professional review. Neither figure is accepted into the workbook.
Compare company submissions in a consistent format while missing reports and unit differences stay visible.
Explore this workflowRevenue increased from 20.4 to 21.8 USD million. Both periods are attached for the reviewer to check.
Company_A_Q1_2026.pdf · p. 3 / Company_A_Q2_2026.pdf · p. 3Connect the request list to the files received, so the team can see what is still outstanding.
Explore this workflowThe file matches the requested year. A proposed “received” status records delivery; the team still reviews the substance.
Illustrative examples of systems we could scope with your team. Each engagement is purpose-built.
Purpose-built software. Managed end to end.
A useful system needs attention after launch. When a reporting template changes or a new document format arrives, we maintain and improve the agreed software with your team. The scope stays clear, and professional judgment stays with you.
Files, review points, and the output your team needs.
Representative documents, unusual cases, and agreed criteria.
Integration, support, and improvements within the agreed scope.
The quarterly template is mapped to the company reports.
Built into the engagement
We define access, data handling, and review requirements with your team before implementation.
That means deciding which information the software may use, how results reach the team, and where a person needs to check them.
Define who can access which information and how it may be handled before implementation.
Design outputs so reviewers can trace a figure to its file, period, and source location.
Make missing information and conflicting figures visible at the point of review.
Fit the output to the team’s templates and tools, with professional sign-off built into the process.
Let’s look at the work
Tell us where the files come from and what you need at the other end. We can work through what a useful first version would look like.