What We Do
We do not build models. We challenge the assumptions inside models that have already been built — before those models are used to make decisions that are difficult to reverse.
The Practice
Model Verification Practice is built on the observation that the most consequential failures in financial models are not calculation errors. They are assumption errors — and assumption errors are structurally difficult for the model's author to find, because the author's mental frame shaped the assumptions in the first place.
We can provide the layer of challenge that the model's author cannot provide for themselves — independent, rigorous, and delivered before the decision is made rather than after it has been called into question.
Over the course of deep experience spanning financial operations, enterprise systems, and management accounting, we observed the same failure pattern repeatedly: at the critical moment, the question was never about the model's structure. It was about why specific assumptions had been made. The team that built the model was rarely able to answer that question with the independent authority the moment required.
Investor-ready models are typically built by the founder's finance team, or by an advisor hired to support the raise. The model is structured correctly. The financial statements are internally consistent. The scenarios look rigorous.
But the assumptions — growth rates, conversion rates, churn thresholds, cost escalation curves — were set by the people who built the model. The worst-case scenario was defined by someone who needed the model to show acceptable outcomes. When investors ask "why did you assume this?" the answer is usually not documented.
Investors are trained to find exactly this gap. The question they ask is not "how did you build this?" — that question is answered by the model's structure. The question they ask is "why did you assume this?" — and that question requires a different answer.
A structured verification report identifying which assumptions are independently supportable, which require additional documentation, and which are likely to face challenge during investor due diligence. We do not rewrite the model. We give you the questions before the investor does.
Try the interactive verifier →Acquisition models are built to evaluate a thesis. The deal team constructs a model that tests whether the transaction makes sense under a defined set of assumptions. The risk is that those assumptions were shaped by the thesis itself — by the expectation that the deal should work.
Synergy assumptions, integration timeline estimates, revenue retention post-acquisition, and cost structure projections are all areas where optimism can be structurally embedded in the model without any individual number appearing unreasonable.
An independent assessment of the assumptions most likely to be challenged by the counterparty, by the board, or by circumstances post-close. Delivered before the decision, when the findings are still actionable.
Capital allocation decisions presented to boards are supported by models built by the management team. Boards are positioned to ask hard questions — but they often receive models whose assumptions have only ever been reviewed by the people who built them.
Governance frameworks increasingly expect that models supporting significant capital decisions have been subject to independent scrutiny. The question is not whether the model is mathematically correct. The question is whether the reasoning underneath it would survive challenge from someone without a stake in the outcome.
A concise assessment of whether the model's assumptions are independently defensible, with specific findings for any assumption that would likely face board challenge. Format is designed to be shared with governance and audit functions if required.
Our Approach
Understanding the boundaries of our work is as important as understanding what it covers.
Our role is independent verification and validation, not model construction. We require a completed model to work from. If you need a model built, we can suggest appropriate resources.
We do not certify that projections will be achieved. We verify that the assumptions behind those projections are independently documented and defensible.
Our work is most effective as a layer added to existing advisory relationships — alongside your CFO, your investment bank, or your transaction counsel — not as a substitute for them.
Tell us about the decision you are preparing for. We will confirm whether and how independent verification would add value.
Start the Conversation →