SAMPLE ASSESSMENT — modeled company, not a client
Peachtree Integrated Systems 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.
Peachtree Integrated Systems
Commercial Services · Assessment vs Validation · every company here is fictional
Assessment · questionnaireNo overall score — self-reported44/44 answered · 0 documents · 16 capped at 6
Validation · documents5.0/10 verified14 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.
cq_04answered 8/10
Owner reportedAround 90–95%, tracked, roughly flat in value
…but their own note said“Retention is strong, the crews build the relationships. We don't really track it as a number — it is more that we know who we have.”matched: we don't really track it as
Self-reported retention answer describes an estimate rather than a measure — confirm against retention or renewal records.
Settled by churn_retention_report, recurring_revenue_schedule
ops_03answered 8/10
Owner reportedOne or two matter, but replacements are available
…but their own note said“Two distributors for most gear, but the controls line is a sole source. Nobody else carries it in the southeast.”matched: sole source
Self-reported vendor-concentration answer and the owner's description may not align — confirm alternatives exist for the dependency described.
Settled by vendor_concentration_summary, vendor_agreements
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 — 14 of them here — scopes the remediation to what the records actually show, and computes the valuation gap from real EBITDA. That is how 5.0/10 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.
