Diligence does not test whether your numbers are good. It tests whether they agree.
When you pitch for finance, the deck gets you the meeting. What happens next is conducted by an analyst with a fresh spreadsheet and no attachment to your story: your model rebuilt from raw actuals, every figure traced across the deck, the memo and the model, every claim checked against what a term sheet demands.
I run that examination first, on your side of the table. The company, the model, the materials and the pitch itself, prepared and tested the way the other side will test them. You get the findings before they do, with time to fix quietly, and you walk into first meetings already knowing the answer to every question about your own numbers.
The proof point on the homepage is real: fifty one inconsistencies found three weeks before investor meetings, fixed in a fortnight, round closed. Nothing dishonest; all dangerous, because every inconsistency an investor finds is a negotiating token in someone else's hand.
What gets tested
- The model: rebuilt from raw actuals, assumptions stress tested, and checked that it survives someone else's spreadsheet
- The materials: deck, memo and data room traced line by line, so every figure agrees everywhere it appears
- The pitch: the story, the numbers behind it, and the answers to the questions that will actually be asked, rehearsed against a sceptical reading
- The governance: the controls, records and board discipline an analyst expects to find, in place before one is looking
- The data room: assembled with no surprises in it, because the worst place to discover a problem is after access is granted