Guide
For investment committees
An investment committee doesn't need more conviction from the deal team. It needs to see three things clearly: which parts of the case are in the data room, which are the team's reading of it, and which are still missing.
The usual problem with IC papers
IC papers are written by people who want the deal to happen. That's not a criticism, just a fact about incentives. The result is predictable. Inferences get written in the grammar of facts ("the business will benefit from…"), and gaps get described as next steps ("confirmatory diligence will cover…"). The committee then has to do the separation work in the meeting, under time pressure.
IC paper template
1. Recommendation and conditions (half a page)
2. Investment thesis, with each pillar marked:
EVIDENCE (data room ref) / INFERENCE / GAP
3. Valuation and returns
Entry and exit multiples · IRR / MoM · sensitivity table
Inputs table: SOURCED vs ASSUMED
4. Financing
Sources and uses · leverage on facility definitions · covenant headroom
5. Quality of earnings
Reported → adjusted EBITDA bridge, each adjustment marked
6. Key risks and mitigants
7. Outstanding diligence: item · owner · date · deal-breaker?
8. Strongest case against (written by someone not on the deal team)
Section 8 is the one that's usually missing.
What CFO Sentinel produces
Run Deep Review on the matter. It produces a record from executive summary to next steps, with evidence, inference and gaps on separate lines, risk and confidence stated, and jurisdiction named. Deep Review runs two independent workings and settles them. Where they disagree, the record decides, and any doubt that remains is stated once. That gives you a built-in second reading, not a single pass.
Typical questions on the desk
- Can the target support the proposed leverage without a liquidity event in the first twelve months?
- Which management adjustments will the buyer's lender contest?
- What diligence is still missing before signing, and which items could change the price?
- Is the exit multiple assumption supported by anything in the file?
Team use
The Counsel seat is for a working group sharing files across a mandate. Chambers is for multiple operators under one house. Matters, files and records stay on the desk that created them.
What it is not
It is not a regulated investment recommendation. The committee decides. For legal exposure, such as change-of-control clauses or litigation, LIA Pro is the desk, reachable by FIA Brief on an FIA Plan seat.
Questions
Can CFO Sentinel review a CIM?
Yes. Attach it to a matter and run Review or Deep Review. Claims the file doesn't support are marked.
Can a deal team share a matter?
The Counsel seat is for a working group sharing files across a mandate, and Chambers is for multiple operators under one house.
Does it replace financial due diligence?
No. It organises and tests what's in the file, and names what's missing.