Audit technology financing plan integrity

What it's for

Lets a CFO, CEO or investor see whether a technology funding plan actually balances and carries defensible covenant headroom before debating roadmap ambition.

What you give it

Inputs split into evidence read from your connected systems, calibration your team owns, and numerical controls that affect precision but never the result's meaning.

{
  "periods": [
    {
      "closing_cash": 100,
      "closing_debt": 60,
      "covenant_ebitda": 20,
      "debt_draw": 10,
      "debt_repayment": 0,
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "financing_cash_flow": 10,
      "id": "roadmap-plan-1",
      "opening_cash": 100,
      "opening_debt": 50,
      "operating_cash_flow": 20,
      "period": 1,
      "plan_id": "roadmap-plan",
      "reported_net_leverage": 0,
      "technology_cash_flow": -30
    },
    {
      "closing_cash": 90,
      "closing_debt": 50,
      "covenant_ebitda": 20,
      "debt_draw": 0,
      "debt_repayment": 10,
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "financing_cash_flow": 0,
      "id": "roadmap-plan-2",
      "opening_cash": 100,
      "opening_debt": 60,
      "operating_cash_flow": 15,
      "period": 2,
      "plan_id": "roadmap-plan",
      "reported_net_leverage": 0,
      "technology_cash_flow": -25
    }
  ]
}

What you get back

This is the actual output of running the example above — computed by the same function the platform calls, not an illustration.

{
  "configuration": {
    "maximum_absolute_reconciliation_error": 0.01,
    "maximum_net_leverage": 3,
    "maximum_relative_reconciliation_error": 0.001,
    "minimum_liquidity_buffer": 0,
    "minimum_periods_per_plan": 2
  },
  "decision": "technology_financing_plan_integrity_supported",
  "guardrails": [
    "Technology and financing cash flows are signed cash movements on one currency, entity, consolidation, tax and period basis. Debt draws must not also appear as unidentified financing inflows unless the reported financing total intentionally includes them.",
    "This audit verifies arithmetic, continuity, evidence and declared covenant headroom; it does not provide an audit opinion, legal covenant interpretation, solvency opinion or causal claim about technology value.",
    "Plans remain aggregate finance artifacts. A failed covenant or reconciliation is never evidence of employee misconduct, and missing evidence must not be reconstructed from later outcomes."
  ],
  "method": "technology_financing_sources_uses_covenant_integrity_audit_v1",
  "period_diagnostics": [
    {
      "cash_continuity_error": 0,
      "cash_reconciliation_error": 0,
      "closing_cash": 100,
      "closing_debt": 60,
      "computed_net_leverage": 0,
      "debt_continuity_error": 0,
      "debt_reconciliation_error": 0,
      "failed_checks": [],
      "period": 1,
      "plan_id": "roadmap-plan",
      "reported_net_leverage": 0
    },
    {
      "cash_continuity_error": 0,
      "cash_reconciliation_error": 0,
      "closing_cash": 90,
      "closing_debt": 50,
      "computed_net_leverage": 0,
      "debt_continuity_error": 0,
      "debt_reconciliation_error": 0,
      "failed_checks": [],
      "period": 2,
      "plan_id": "roadmap-plan",
      "reported_net_leverage": 0
    }
  ],
  "plan_diagnostics": [

How it works

Statistical audit & measurement — Check whether a number is fit to decide on: coverage, timing, reconciliation, and the gaps a dashboard hides.

1. 1 Freeze each plan's entity, currency, accounting, covenant and period perimeter, then order immutable period rows without dropping zero-flow periods.
2. 2 Recompute closing cash from signed operating, technology and financing flows; recompute debt from draws and repayments; reconcile each next opening balance to the prior close and reported leverage to net debt over covenant EBITDA.
3. 3 Gate period support, continuity, arithmetic, evidence, cash buffer and leverage, retaining undefined leverage when EBITDA is nonpositive and net debt remains positive.

Before you trust it

Every tool in the catalog ships with the conditions under which its answer is meaningful — and the conditions under which it should abstain instead of guessing.

Calibrating it to your org

Calibration workflow

1. 1 Define the management decision, target outcome, aggregate unit, privacy boundary, cadence, and prediction/intervention horizon for this organization.
2. 2 Build a tenant-scoped historical cohort using only information available before each prediction or decision; preserve zero periods, censoring, assignment probabilities, and unresolved outcomes when the method requires them.
3. 3 Estimate statistical parameters on training history, but obtain costs, utilities, risk tolerance, practical-effect thresholds, capacity, and policy constraints from accountable decision owners.
4. 4 Validate on later time windows or held-out aggregate units at the deployment grain, against a simple baseline and the function-specific validation strategy.
5. 5 Deploy only if the returned decision clears evidence, overlap, calibration, robustness, and guardrail checks; warning, unsupported, schema-gap, and fallback decisions are abstentions.
6. 6 Monitor realized outcomes, data drift, coverage, and decision regret; recalibrate at a governed cadence or after a detected regime/definition change, never merely because a stakeholder dislikes the result.

Call it from your AI

You don't wire up 388 tools in your MCP client. The GitRevio MCP server exposes 18 tools, three of which let an agent search the catalog, read a tool's schema, and run it — so the assistant finds this one on its own.

gitrevio_capabilities_search
  { "q": "audit multiperiod technology financing plans as" }
  → finds "audit_technology_financing_plan_integrity"

gitrevio_capability_describe
  { "capability_id": "audit_technology_financing_plan_integrity" }
  → returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page

gitrevio_capability_run
  { "capability_id": "audit_technology_financing_plan_integrity", "arguments": { ... } }
  → returns the result shown above

Works in Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Continue.dev, Goose and Aider. See the MCP server.

Related tools

See every tool in Finance & unit economics →