Built for QoE boutiques · transaction advisory · ETA diligence

The diligence workflows we automate

Seller data into buyer-ready workpapers. Add-back decisions and peg methodology stay with your deal team.

Book a diligence workflow assessment

The workflows

12 workflows we automate in a transaction advisory practice

The equity bridge

Supporting analyses

Today: revenue, gross margin, and overhead movements across the review period are explained by hand, price and volume effects separated from memory, one-off items pulled out of the trend by inspection.
We automate: the monthly P&L databook built across the review period, price, volume, and mix effects decomposed from the underlying detail, one-off items separated from trend, driver commentary drafted and linked to source.
You keep: which drivers matter to the buyer and the trading narrative in the report.

Today: revenue and margin are remapped to product and service lines by hand each engagement, because the seller's chart of accounts was never built for this cut.
We automate: revenue and margin mapped to lines from the seller's schedules, line-level trends and dependency built, cross-sell and up-sell patterns surfaced from the customer base.
You keep: the line mapping judgment and what concentration in one line means for the deal.

Today: the EBITDA-to-cash conversion bridge is built by hand, and historical capex is combed line by line to separate maintenance spend from growth spend.
We automate: the cash conversion bridge built from ledger and bank data, capex classified into maintenance, growth, and expansionary from the fixed asset register and invoice detail, sustainable free cash flow implications flagged.
You keep: the capex classification calls and what they mean for post-close cash flow.

Today: the current-year reforecast is checked against management's historical budget-versus-actual track record by hand, and aggressive assumptions are caught by instinct rather than by testing.
We automate: budget-versus-actual accuracy scored line by line across the review period, forecast assumptions tested against run-rate, pipeline, and observed seasonality, aggressive assumptions flagged with sensitivities.
You keep: which assumptions to challenge in the management meeting and the forecast conclusion.

Intake and delivery

Today: the first week of the engagement disappears into cleaning exports, mapping the seller's chart, and discovering mid-analysis what is missing.
We automate: trial balances, general ledgers, bank exports, and non-standard spreadsheets normalized on receipt, cash-basis books flagged for accrual conversion, with gaps and inconsistencies reported before analysis begins.
You keep: the request list conversation with the seller.

Book a diligence workflow assessment

How it runs

hands off to normalize

hands off to domain work

hands off to verify

hands off to exception

hands off to output

Stage	Agents	What happens
1. Intake	Intake Agent (data quality assessment)	Trial balances, GLs, bank exports, and non-standard spreadsheets classified and normalized on receipt, gaps reported first
2. Normalize	Intake Agent (chart mapping, period alignment)	The seller's world mapped to the diligence structure
3. Domain work	Bridge Agent (EBITDA adjustment, quality of revenue, historical trading, product and service line), Cash Agent (proof of cash, net debt, NWC, cash flow and capex), Narrative Agent (outturn and forecast review)	The analysis layer, prepared and sourced
4. Verify	Recomputation Verifier computed, Transaction Support Verifier, Bridge Integrity Verifier	Every add-back checked against its transactions, the bridge reconciles without a plug. A separate stage, deliberately: Bridge Agent and Cash Agent do not check their own work
5. Exception	Red-Flag Agent	Classification judgment, debt-like calls, thin support, surfaced with context rather than resolved silently
6. Output	Narrative Agent, Bridge Builder, Databook Assembly, Excel Export	The bridge, the databook, a drafted narrative, Excel that preserves your structure

The boundary

Every add-back decision, debt-like classification, and peg methodology call is yours. The file records what was accepted, what was rejected, and why. That record is what holds when the other side challenges a number.

Live today · transaction advisory

You hire a team instead of learning software.

This is our most mature deployment, running in transaction advisory engagements today. Five agents staff the preparation work: exports in, source-linked Excel workpapers out, your reviewers approving every finding.

The same six-stage architecture underneath it runs every service line on this site, this is one working instance of it, not the whole platform. How the same stages configure for your service line.

Alpine_QoE_Workpapers.xlsx · Intake Agentrunning

B5fx=COUNTIF(Status,"unmapped")

ABC

1TB_FY22-24_final(3).xlsxTrial balance98% mapped

2gl_dump_all.csvGeneral ledger96% mapped

3bank stmts Q1-Q4.pdfBank12/12 parsed

4rev by cust FINAL.xlsxRevenue14 merged

5Unmapped accounts6 rows→ reviewer

Illustrative workpaper · not client data

Also in pilot

Screening inbound mandates instead of running diligence?

Mandate Screener takes a management P&L and returns an internal screening memo: a normalized EBITDA range, an indicative valuation from cited comparable transactions, a sellability scorecard, and a take, decline, or conditional recommendation that a partner approves in a queue. It is an internal screen, never a client deliverable, and every memo is watermarked as one.

In pilot with early design partners.

See the full engagement, step by step

Name the one costing you the most.

45 minutes with the people who would build it. You leave with a written map of where your hours go and an estimate for each, whether or not we work together.

Book a diligence workflow assessment

The diligence workflows we automate

The workflows

Proof of cashThe workpaper a buyer's team asks for first and the one that takes longestDeposits in transit and timing items itemized+

Add-back identification and supportAdd-backs found by reading the GLThin support flagged before the other side finds it+

Net working capitalThe peg built in Excel, seasonality argued from memoryThe peg calculation run in code+

Net debt and debt-like itemsDebt-like items found late and argued at the closing tableDeferred revenue, capitalized leases, unfunded PTO, related-party payables+

The EBITDA bridgeReported-to-adjusted assembled by hand, and a plug appears at 2 a.mIntegrity checked in code so it reconciles without a plug+

Historical trading analysisRevenue, gross margin, and overhead movements across the review period are explained by handPrice, volume, and mix effects decomposed from the underlying detail+

Product and service line analysisRevenue and margin are remapped to product and service lines by hand each engagementLine-level trends and dependency built+

Cash flow and capex analysisThe EBITDA-to-cash conversion bridge is built by handCapex classified into maintenance, growth, and expansionary+

Outturn and forecast reviewThe current-year reforecast is checked against management's historical budget-versus-actual track record by handBudget-versus-actual accuracy scored line by line+

Quality of revenueConcentration and recognition timing analyzed if there is timeCustomer concentration, cohort behavior, period-end cutoff, and timing patterns+

Data room intake and quality assessmentThe first week of the engagement disappears into cleaning exportsCash-basis books flagged for accrual conversion+

The databookAssembled at the end of the engagementThe exhibit set assembled continuously as the analysis runs+

How it runs

The boundary

You hire a team instead of learning software.

Screening inbound mandates instead of running diligence?

Name the one costing you the most.