Build transaction comparables and pitch materials

Why use this

1. A deal team assembling comparables can find important figures scattered across transaction documents with inconsistent dates, currencies and definitions. A polished pitch may hide that two apparently similar figures measure different things.

2. This job could make the extraction and normalization choices reviewable before the numbers enter a presentation. Keeping source passages and exclusions beside the comparison helps a qualified reviewer challenge the analysis rather than only its formatting.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Identify comparable evidence, flag inconsistent financial definitions and explain where normalization would require assumptions.

Simpler alternative

Use a standard worksheet when the source documents already follow one agreed reporting basis.

Unsuitable when

The output would be used as personal investment advice, definitive valuation or authority to transact.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Transaction documents

   Owner

   Authorized deal team

   Minimum scope

   Approved excerpts relevant to the comparison

   Quality check

   Check confidentiality, versions and reporting dates

2. Name

   Comparison brief

   Owner

   Qualified reviewer

   Minimum scope

   Selection criteria, units and presentation purpose

   Quality check

   Define metrics and permitted assumptions

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Read scoped document copies and create private analysis drafts; no trading, banking or transaction-system access.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Current plugin capabilities, document extraction and exact runtime compatibility are unknown.

External actions requiring approval

1. Disclosing deal information, distributing pitch materials, purchasing data or making financial commitments requires authorization.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Comparable-company worksheet, extraction register and pitch outline with unresolved normalization questions.

Critical checks

1. Trace every figure; align currency, period and metric definition; distinguish reported numbers from editor assumptions.

Missing output evidence

This overlay adds no new output inspection, execution or validation; consult the referenced canonical source outcome limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   Enterprise value is compared with equity value

   Why it matters

   The apparent multiple comparison is invalid

   Proposed response

   Separate the metrics and request the missing reconciliation.

2. Signal

   A forecast is treated as historical performance

   Why it matters

   The pitch understates uncertainty

   Proposed response

   Label periods and evidence type consistently.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Agree comparable-selection rules and financial definitions.

Ongoing review

1. Qualified staff review calculations, exclusions and claims.

Unknowns

1. Data rights, normalization effort, professional review and tool costs are unknown.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Invent three company summaries with mixed currencies, one forecast and incompatible value definitions; prepare a discrepancy register only.

Acceptance checks

1. Identify each mismatch; avoid fabricated conversions; make no valuation or investment recommendation.

Stop conditions

1. Stop if missing terms would require invented assumptions or confidential data needs unapproved disclosure.

Limits

1. A comparable table cannot establish fair value, transaction suitability or the accuracy of reported financial information.