Workflows
See how the work
comes together.
These examples follow a file from the moment it arrives to the output a professional can review. Each illustrates a system we could build around your team’s particular process.
Company A, B, and C are generic labels. All figures and files are sample data, not real company or client records. These workflows illustrate potential scoped systems, not customer deployments.
Boutique banks & advisory practices
Find the right file, even when the folders disagree.
A colleague may know exactly where a file lives, but that knowledge rarely survives years of new engagements and renamed folders. We can build a register that connects each document to its entity, period, and original location, without rearranging the shared drive.
Inputs, review, and output
- What comes in
- Approved shared-drive folders, nested deal directories, PDFs, and spreadsheets with inconsistent names and repeated versions.
- How it could work
- Classify documents by engagement, entity, and period. Surface likely duplicates and flag ambiguous versions for review, under agreed access rules.
- What comes out
- A searchable document register with useful metadata and links back to originals. Authoritative files can stay where they are.
CIM_v2 identifies the same year. Its name alone does not establish which version to use.
Inspect original-file references
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
The index can be introduced without moving files or changing permissions. Those changes would need a separately agreed scope.
Discuss your workflowBoutique investment banks & independent PE
Follow every figure back to the deal documents.
Your team already knows the workbook it needs. The time goes into finding figures across the CIM, accounts, QoE, and model, then checking that they mean the same thing. We build the mapping around your template and keep conflicting figures in front of the reviewer.
Inputs, review, and output
- What comes in
- The CIM, financial statements, management presentation, quality-of-earnings report, and operating model.
- How it could work
- Map agreed fields to the team’s template. Keep currency, units, period, and source location attached. Route conflicting figures and earnings adjustments to a reviewer.
- What comes out
- An illustrative deal workbook in the firm’s existing format, with sourced fields and an exception list for the deal team.
Your deal review template
| 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.
Selected sources, with locations
- Revenue · 84.2
- Company_A_CIM.pdf · p. 24
- Reported EBITDA · 12.6
- Company_A_CIM.pdf · p. 25
- Adjusted EBITDA · 14.1 / 13.8
- Company_A_QoE.pdf · p. 18
Operating_model.xlsx · Financials!F18
CIM_v2 remains unconfirmed in the document register. It does not silently replace the selected source.
Confirm the adjustment bridge
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.
The team retains diligence judgment and final decisions. No investment recommendations or guarantee of diligence completeness.
Discuss your workflowIndependent PE, portfolio operations & valuation
Bring the portfolio into the same reporting format.
One company sends a PDF, another changes its spreadsheet, and a third has yet to report. A purpose-built reporting workflow can bring agreed metrics into your existing template while making those differences visible before sign-off.
Inputs, review, and output
- What comes in
- Monthly or quarterly portfolio-company reports and the team’s previous reporting workbook.
- How it could work
- Match the company and period, extract agreed metrics, and compare with the prior period. Flag missing submissions and unit mismatches before they enter the output.
- What comes out
- A consistent portfolio table or existing Excel template with source references, exceptions, and a professional sign-off step.
Revenue 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. 3Inspect source references
- Company_A_Q1_2026.pdf · p. 3 / Company_A_Q2_2026.pdf · p. 3. Revenue increased from 20.4 to 21.8 USD million. Both periods are attached for the reviewer to check.
- Company_B_Q1_2026.xlsx · Summary!B8 / Company_B_Q2_2026.xlsx · Summary!B8. The Q2 submission reports 10,200 in USD thousands. The workbook uses USD millions, so conversion is held for confirmation.
- Company_C_Q1_2026.pdf · p. 2 / Q2 source not received. The Q2 submission has not been received. The previous period remains visible; no new revenue figure is filled in.
A configurable reporting workflow. Valuation judgments remain with the professionals responsible for them.
Discuss your workflowTransaction advisory & deal execution teams
See what a new file actually answers.
A new file in the data room might answer a request, cover only part of it, or refer to the wrong year. We can connect incoming documents to your tracker and prepare status changes that explain what has arrived and what still needs attention.
Inputs, review, and output
- What comes in
- The current diligence request list and newly received data-room files.
- How it could work
- Match files to requests and check coverage and reporting periods. Distinguish received, missing, partial, and needs-confirmation items.
- What comes out
- A reviewable tracker with proposed status changes and supporting file links, ready for the team to confirm.
The file matches the requested year. A proposed “received” status records delivery; the team still reviews the substance.
A received file does not mean substantive diligence is complete. External communications remain subject to human review.
Discuss your workflowLet’s look at the work
What does your team
keep doing by hand?
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.