SAMPLE ASSESSMENT — modeled company, not a client

Pinnacle Integrated Solutions 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.

Pinnacle Integrated Solutions

Commercial Services · Assessment vs Validation · every company here is fictional

Full Assessment report →Full Validation report →See the full side-by-side →All samples →

Assessment · questionnaireNo overall score — self-reported44/44 answered · 0 documents · 10 capped at 6

Validation · documents4.2/10 verified13 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.

dr_07answered 10/10

Owner reportedDays — it's already organized in one place

…but their own note said“It is all there. I would have to pull it together from the server, my email and my bookkeeper, but I could get a buyer whatever he asked for.”matched: pull it together

Self-reported produceability answer and the owner's description may not align — confirm the material is assembled rather than assemblable.

Settled by data_room_index

dr_04answered 8/10

Owner reportedFormation and ownership documents; governance records are thin

…but their own note said“My attorney has the formation documents and the operating agreement. The cap table I would have to rebuild — I gave my brother-in-law a slice back in 2019 on a handshake and we never papered it.”matched: my attorney has

Self-reported corporate-records answer and the owner's description may not align — confirm formation documents, the operating agreement and the cap table are current.

Settled by formation_documents, cap_table, governance_records

The eight domains, both ways

The Assessment column is what the owner reported and how urgently it reads for them. The Validation column is what the documents support. Where Validation is blank, the evidence did not reach the threshold to score it.

Domain	Reported	Owner’s priority	Verified
Diligence Risk	6.9	Moderate	3.6/10
Owner Risk	6.5	Moderate	3.0/10
Customer Quality	6.5	Moderate	6.8/10
Operational Scalability	6.2	Moderate	3.8/10
Financial Readiness	6.8	Moderate	5.5/10
Legal & Regulatory Compliance	7.2	Moderate	5.0/10
Technology & Systems Maturity	6.2	Moderate	3.0/10
Human Capital	6.0	Moderate	2.3/10

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 — 13 of them here — scopes the remediation to what the records actually show, and computes the valuation gap from real EBITDA. That is how 4.2/10 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.