Screen deal documents with scenarios

Why use this

1. An investment team comparing deal materials may face inconsistent financial layouts and optimistic assumptions that are hard to compare directly. Scenario outputs can look authoritative even when key inputs remain unsupported.

2. This job could prepare standardized extracts and explicit scenario assumptions for qualified review. Keeping missing information and criterion interpretations visible helps the team discuss an opportunity without treating a modelled outcome as a forecast or investment recommendation.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Reconcile financial definitions, map documents to supplied criteria and expose scenario assumptions that drive conclusions.

Simpler alternative

Use a standard diligence worksheet when source materials already share a consistent format.

Unsuitable when

The workflow would recommend a transaction, certify valuation or change financial commitments without qualified approval.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Deal document pack

   Owner

   Authorized investment team

   Minimum scope

   Relevant financial/operational excerpts

   Quality check

   Verify versions, periods and confidentiality

2. Name

   Screening/scenario brief

   Owner

   Qualified reviewer

   Minimum scope

   Criteria, assumptions and requested downside questions

   Quality check

   Separate thresholds from investment authority

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Use fictional statements and scenario definitions; no private data access, model execution or deal action.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Current document extraction, financial plugin support, formula tooling and runtime compatibility are unknown.

External actions requiring approval

1. Sharing deal information, purchasing data, changing authoritative models or making financial commitments requires approval.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Financial-extraction and scenario-plan candidate with source links, assumption register and reviewer exceptions.

Critical checks

1. Align periods/currencies and metric definitions; distinguish reported, adjusted and assumed values; retain missing evidence.

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

   An adjusted metric is treated as reported performance

   Why it matters

   Comparison hides management assumptions

   Proposed response

   Keep adjustments separately identified and sourced.

2. Signal

   A downside case changes multiple unexplained inputs

   Why it matters

   The model obscures what drives the result

   Proposed response

   Document each assumption and request reviewer confirmation.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Define comparable financial fields and scenario logic.

Ongoing review

1. Qualified reviewers verify inputs and own all investment decisions.

Unknowns

1. Document quality, model suitability, diligence effort and professional costs are unknown.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Invent two deal summaries with different metric definitions and a scenario containing an unsupported growth assumption; prepare a review table.

Acceptance checks

1. Flag noncomparability; label assumptions; calculate no valuation or recommendation.

Stop conditions

1. Stop if evidence or confidential-data permission is missing.

Limits

1. Scenario planning cannot establish future performance, fair value or the suitability of a transaction.