Financial reporting

Financial reporting automation pulls your numbers from the accounting system and connected sources, assembles your recurring management and board reports, P&L, cash position, KPIs, and variance against plan, and writes a plain-language first draft of the commentary, ready on the schedule you set. It does the assembly and the first pass a finance lead does by hand each month, then hands over a draft for review. It is not audited financial statements and not accounting advice. It is the recurring internal reporting your leadership already reads, built for you instead of rebuilt by you every close.

Your accounting software exports what lives inside it: a standard P&L and balance sheet from the ledger. A board pack is more than that. It pulls KPIs from the CRM, cash from the bank, revenue detail from spreadsheets, and it sets this month against plan with commentary on what moved and why. Today the finance lead stitches those sources together and writes that narrative by hand. This does the stitching and the first-draft narrative for you, in your own report layout, so you get the finished management report rather than a raw export you still have to assemble.

Yes, always. The automation does the assembly and writes a first draft of the commentary, but a person reviews the figures and the narrative before anything reaches the board. That is by design. The numbers carry real weight, so the finance lead stays the owner of what goes out. What changes is where the time goes. Instead of spending hours exporting and rebuilding, they spend a short review confirming the figures tie out and tightening the commentary. The system drafts, the human decides and signs.

The report is only as accurate as the data feeding it, and the system is built to be honest about that. Every figure links back to the source it came from, so you can trace any number in one click. When a figure looks off, for example a total that does not tie to the ledger or a KPI missing its inputs, it flags it for review instead of printing it as fact. It will not invent a number to fill a gap. The first weeks of setup are spent checking its output against reports you have already signed off, so you trust it before you rely on it. A human still reviews every report.

On the source side, accounting systems like QuickBooks, Xero, and NetSuite, spreadsheets in Google Sheets and Excel, bank feeds, billing tools like Stripe, and your CRM such as Attio for the KPIs that live there. On the delivery side, a Google Doc or Slides, PowerPoint, or a summary into Slack or email, so the report arrives where your board already reads it. Most tools with an API can be added. The audit maps your exact stack and confirms which sources each number in your report should come from.

Usually two to three weeks. The first days go to the part that matters most: mapping your chart of accounts and pinning down the exact definition of each KPI in your report, since those are rarely written down. Then the connectors get wired in, the template is matched to the report your board already knows, and the output runs against a month or two of reports you have already signed off so the figures and commentary get checked before anyone relies on them. You are live with a scheduled report quickly, and that validation window is what makes it trustworthy.

Two parts. Tooling runs as a modest monthly cost for the connectors and the model that drafts the commentary, usually a per-source range that scales with how many systems feed the report. Implementation is a fixed scope, quoted once the audit maps your accounts, KPI definitions, sources, and report layout, so you are pricing a defined build rather than an open-ended retainer. The audit is where the scope and price get set against every other opportunity in your business, priced as part of that engagement, so you are not guessing at effort up front.