SAMPLE ASSESSMENT — modeled company, not a client
Mercer Law Partners is a modeled business created to demonstrate this assessment. Both sides of this comparison are synthetic: the owner's answers were authored to demonstrate the questionnaire, and the source documents behind the Validation column were generated to a spec. Both are scored by the same engine, against the same criteria used for real engagements — so the method is real and the company is not. Nothing here describes an actual business, and this is not a case study of client work.
Mercer Law Partners
Legal · Assessment vs Validation · every company here is fictional
Assessment · questionnaireNo overall score — self-reported44/44 answered · 0 documents · 11 capped at 6
Validation · documents4.8/10 verified11 documents ingested · 8-domain blend
Where the answers and the notes diverge 2
Every row below is computed from the owner's own submission: the answer they selected, the phrase in their own note that sits against it, and the record that would settle which is right. None of it is written by us, and none of it is an accusation.
owr_04answered 10/10
Owner reportedSomeone is trained and ready to step in
…but their own note said“My partner originates most of the new matters. If he left the referral sources would go with him — nobody else knows those relationships.”matched: nobody else knows
Self-reported key-person answer and the owner's description may not align — confirm cover exists for the role described.
Settled by org_chart, key_employee_retention_agreements, management_bios
lc_04answered 8/10
Owner reportedThe entity owns the core; minor gaps in registration or assignment
…but their own note said“The precedent library and the matter templates are the firm's. Honestly the domain is registered in my name from when I started out.”matched: registered in my name
Self-reported IP-ownership answer and the owner's description may not align — confirm assignments place ownership with the entity.
Settled by ip_assignment_agreements, systems_access_ownership_inventory
Both complete reports are below, exactly as published — these frames load the same files the links above open, so nothing here can drift from the reports it shows.
The Assessment report, in full
Scored from the owner’s forty-four answers. No documents reviewed.
The Validation report, in full
Scored from the document set. Findings cite the file they came from.
What moves you from one to the other
The Assessment names what to work on from what the owner reported. Validation substantiates each of those against the documents — 11 of them here — scopes the remediation to what the records actually show, and computes the valuation gap from real EBITDA. That is how 4.8/10 came to be a number worth quoting rather than an assertion.
Severity below is calculated from what you reported, not from what your scores were held to. A criterion answered strongly is treated as strong here even where the score was capped for want of a document — the cap is a statement about evidence, not about your business.
Validation verifies each of these against your documents, scopes the remediation to what your records actually show, and computes your valuation gap from your real EBITDA — the substantiation and the figures a self-reported assessment cannot produce. Engagement pricing comes out of a scoping conversation, once there is a document set to scope against.
