Optimize contingent technology financing policy

Optimize initial and observed-signal-contingent financing, restructuring or investment-response actions on a coherent cash/debt/EBITDA scenario tree; enforce nonanticipativity, dependencies, exclusions, node budgets/capacity, liquidity and leverage chance constraints, tail funding need, enterprise value and exact-or-disclosed beam search.

What it's for

Moves beyond warning that runway is short: Gitrevio chooses what to commit now and what financing or roadmap response to trigger only if an observable funding state occurs.

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.

Field Type Role Required
actions array of objects (13 fields) ≥ 1 item Evidence Yes
beam_width integer ≥ 2, ≤ 10000 Numerical control Optional
contingent_budget_by_signal object Evidence Yes
contingent_capacity_by_signal object Evidence Yes
initial_budget number ≥ 0 Your calibration Yes
initial_capacity_units number ≥ 0 Your calibration Yes
max_detail_rows integer ≥ 1, ≤ 500 Numerical control Optional
maximum_breach_probability number ≥ 0, ≤ 1 Your calibration Optional
maximum_cvar_residual_funding_need number ≥ 0 Your calibration Optional
maximum_exact_states integer ≥ 2, ≤ 1000000 Numerical control Optional
maximum_net_leverage number ≥ 0 Your calibration Optional
minimum_cash_buffer number ≥ 0 Your calibration Optional
minimum_expected_net_enterprise_value number Your calibration Optional
risk_aversion number ≥ 0 Your calibration Optional
scenarios array of objects (9 fields) ≥ 2 items Evidence Yes
starting_cash number ≥ 0 Your calibration Yes
starting_debt number ≥ 0 Your calibration Yes
tail_probability number > 0, ≤ 0.5 Your calibration Optional

Each actions record

Field Type Required
budget_cost number (≥ 0) Yes
capacity_units number (≥ 0) Yes
covenant_ebitda_effect_scenarios array of number (≥ 2 items) Yes
debt_effect_scenarios array of number (≥ 2 items) Yes
decision_stage one of "initial", "contingent" Yes
dependency_ids array of string Yes
effective_period integer (≥ 1, ≤ 120) Yes
eligible_signal_ids array of string Yes
exclusion_ids array of string Yes
gross_enterprise_value_effect_scenarios array of number (≥ 2 items) Yes
id string (non-empty) Yes
transaction_cost_scenarios array of number (≥ 2 items) Yes
unrestricted_cash_effect_scenarios array of number (≥ 2 items) Yes
Example input
{
  "actions": [
    {
      "budget_cost": 1,
      "capacity_units": 1,
      "covenant_ebitda_effect_scenarios": [
        0,
        0
      ],
      "debt_effect_scenarios": [
        0,
        0
      ],
      "decision_stage": "contingent",
      "dependency_ids": [],
      "effective_period": 1,
      "eligible_signal_ids": [
        "closed"
      ],
      "exclusion_ids": [],
      "gross_enterprise_value_effect_scenarios": [
        0,
        30
      ],
      "id": "equity-backstop",
      "transaction_cost_scenarios": [
        0,
        5
      ],
      "unrestricted_cash_effect_scenarios": [
        0,
        100
      ]
    }
  ],
  "contingent_budget_by_signal": {
    "closed": 1,
    "open": 0
  },
  "contingent_capacity_by_signal": {
    "closed": 1,
    "open": 0
  },
  "initial_budget": 0,

Truncated for display — the full payload is 111 lines.

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.

Example output
{
  "configuration": {
    "contingent_budget_by_signal": {
      "closed": 1,
      "open": 0
    },
    "contingent_capacity_by_signal": {
      "closed": 1,
      "open": 0
    },
    "initial_budget": 0,
    "initial_capacity_units": 0,
    "maximum_breach_probability": 0.1,
    "maximum_cvar_residual_funding_need": null,
    "maximum_net_leverage": 3,
    "minimum_cash_buffer": 20,
    "minimum_expected_net_enterprise_value": 0,
    "risk_aversion": 0,
    "tail_probability": 0.4
  },
  "decision": "contingent_technology_financing_policy_supported",
  "guardrails": [
    "Initial choices use no future signal. Every contingent choice is constant for all scenarios sharing the observed signal; effect and cost may vary afterward, but action selection cannot inspect hidden within-signal outcomes.",
    "Cash, debt, EBITDA, enterprise-value effects and transaction costs must be locally governed common-scenario estimates. Debt effects are not free cash unless unrestricted proceeds are also represented, and restructuring value loss must not be hidden as a financing benefit.",
    "Exact mode certifies only the represented scenario tree, actions and constraints. Beam mode is feasible but not globally optimal. No policy output is financing authority, covenant interpretation, solvency opinion, legal advice or permission to reduce safety-critical technology investment."
  ],
  "method": "nonanticipative_cash_debt_covenant_scenario_tree_policy_v1",
  "selected_contingent_actions": [
    {
      "action_id": "equity-backstop",
      "budget_cost": 1,
      "capacity_units": 1,
      "dependency_ids": [],
      "signal_id": "closed",
      "signal_probability": 0.4
    }
  ],
  "selected_initial_actions": [],
  "solver": {
    "beam_width": 100,
    "evaluated_policy_count": 2,
    "global_optimality_certificate": true,
    "maximum_exact_states": 4096,
    "mode": "exact_scenario_tree_enumeration",

Truncated for display — the full payload is 67 lines.

How it works

Constrained optimization — Pick the best feasible option under real limits — budget, headcount, dependencies, capacity — rather than ranking a list and hoping it fits.

  1. 1 Freeze a common finance scenario tree and define executable actions by decision stage, observable signal eligibility, effective period, cash/debt/EBITDA/value effects, transaction cost, resources and relations.
  2. 2 Enumerate or beam-search initial sets and one contingent set per signal, applying the same choice to every hidden outcome inside that signal before rolling cash, debt and leverage paths forward.
  3. 3 Select expected enterprise-value effect minus a CVaR funding-need penalty subject to breach and tail gates, returning the initial commitment, signal policy and an honest global-certificate flag.

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.

Assumptions & guardrails

  • Objectives use commensurable locally governed value units, constraints reflect real feasibility, and uncertainty covers plausible adverse inputs.
  • Signals are genuinely observable before contingent action; effects/costs are prospective and common-scenario aligned; action registry and constraints are complete; cash proceeds, debt increases, EBITDA changes and enterprise-value losses are not duplicated or omitted.
  • The recommendation is optimal only for its stated objective, feasible set, evidence, and solver guarantee; it is not a universal management optimum.
  • The policy is conditional on the represented scenario tree and is globally certified only in exact mode. It is not financing authority, legal or solvency advice, and may not sacrifice security, reliability or safety merely to improve modeled headroom.

Minimum evidence

  • starting_cash: required and organization-defined
  • starting_debt: required and organization-defined
  • scenarios: at least 2 rows/items
  • actions: at least 1 rows/items
  • initial_budget: required and organization-defined
  • initial_capacity_units: required and organization-defined
  • contingent_budget_by_signal: required and organization-defined
  • contingent_capacity_by_signal: required and organization-defined

How to validate it

Backtest the chosen action against simple feasible baselines on held-out scenarios, sweep costs/constraints/risk tolerance, and require constraint feasibility under adverse inputs.

Calibrating it to your org

Same for everyone

The mathematical kernel, validation rules, method version, and JSON output semantics are organization-independent; no tenant-trained coefficients or company benchmark is embedded in the function.

Specific to you

  • prospective executable financing and safe technology-response registry joined to finance-approved common scenarios, observable decision-time signals and full transaction/restructuring economics
  • signal observability, action legal availability and implementation timing, prospective effects, transaction/restructuring cost, enterprise-value consequences, technology safety constraints, budgets/capacity, relations, covenant/chance/CVaR gates, solver boundary and activation authority

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": "optimize initial and observedsignalcontingent financing restructuring" }
  → finds "optimize_contingent_technology_financing_policy"

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

gitrevio_capability_run
  { "capability_id": "optimize_contingent_technology_financing_policy", "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

Audit technology financing plan integrity

Audit multi-period technology financing plans as continuous sources-and-uses ledgers: reconcile cash and debt identities, opening-to-closing continuity, period completeness, verified evidence, liquidity headroom and reported versus computed net-leverage covenants without hiding undefined leverage behind a favorable ratio.

Statistical audit & measurement

Calculate technology plan financeability

Calculate whether a technology plan remains liquid and net-leverage compliant across coherent multi-period cash, debt, investment, financing and EBITDA scenarios; derive the exact minimum period-zero unrestricted capital per path, confidence reserve, breach trajectory and CVaR residual funding shortfall.

Decision analysis

Audit benefit double counting

Reconcile business-case benefit claims to unique economic source pools and allocation fractions, exposing overallocated sources and claim-level mismatches before portfolio value is aggregated.

Constrained optimization

Audit cash flow timing consistency

Audit whether economic-event and cash-settlement timing obey governed lag rules across coherent scenarios, quantify the resulting NPV distortion, reconstruct scenario liquidity paths, and separate timing exceptions from liquidity-tail exposure without treating exceptions as wrongdoing.

Statistical audit & measurement

Audit cost allocation consistency

Audit whether shared engineering, platform, cloud, vendor, or operating cost pools reconcile to source totals and follow their declared pro-rata allocation bases at every target.

Statistical audit & measurement

Audit cost capitalization sensitivity

Audit whether permitted software-cost capitalization choices change reported project ROI and priority even though scenario cash NPV, downside, and economic rank are unchanged.

Statistical audit & measurement

See every tool in Finance & unit economics →

Ready to See Your Engineering work clearly?

Request a free demo