Home/Sample report

See it before you run it

This is the whole deliverable.

Most diagnostics show you a teaser and keep the report behind an email gate. Here is a complete Close Flight Check output — the score, the dimensions, every finding, and the parts we mark as not yet knowable. Read it, decide whether it's worth three minutes, then run your own.

Run mine free Book 20 minutes

Fictional company · Illustrative figures · Not a customer result

Everything below is fabricated for illustration

"Northbridge Components" is not a real company and these are not real results. We publish this instead of customer case studies because we have not earned those yet, and we would rather show you the shape of the work than invent a testimonial. The structure, field names, grading and honesty of the output are exactly what the live Flight Check produces.

Close Flight Check · Result

Northbridge Components, Inc.

Manufacturing · $28M revenue · 4 legal entities · 6 in finance · NetSuite, Bill.com, Ramp, ADP, Excel

Illustrative
57Flight Readiness

Manual work is slowing the close. Four findings worth acting on, two of them well-evidenced enough to scope now.

Evidence coverage: questionnaire only — no documents supplied, so two findings are capped at low confidence.

Six scored dimensions

Close speed11d vs 7d benchmark
Manual effortHigh
Cash frictionNot assessed in Close
Control & spreadsheet riskElevated
Key-person dependencyConcentrated
Automation readinessGood — APIs available

The findings

Four findings, each graded by the evidence behind it.

Every finding states a range rather than a single invented number, names its own confidence level, and lists what would have to be validated before anyone acts on it. Findings we can't support are marked as such rather than padded out.

Finding 01 · Manual effort Medium confidence

Intercompany eliminations are rebuilt by hand every close

Four entities are consolidated through a spreadsheet that is rebuilt from exports each period. The workbook carries prior-period formulas forward manually, so an error introduced in one cycle can persist undetected into the next.

Reported workflowQuantified rangeValidation needed
Process
Intercompany elimination & consolidation
Severity
High
Estimated impact
14–22 hrs / close
Confidence
Medium — questionnaire only
Complexity
Medium
Priority
1 of 4

Recommendation. Move eliminations into a defined, version-controlled routine with a reconciliation check before posting. Validate first: the actual entity ownership structure, whether the elimination logic differs by entity pair, and who currently reviews the workbook before posting.

Finding 02 · Close speed Medium confidence

The close cannot start until AP cutoff clears on day 4

Accrual work is blocked behind a manual AP cutoff review. The dependency is serial: nothing downstream begins until one person signs off, which places roughly a third of the close on the critical path of a single task.

Reported workflowQuantified rangeValidation needed
Process
AP cutoff & accrual
Severity
Medium
Estimated impact
2–4 days of close calendar
Confidence
Medium — questionnaire only
Complexity
Low
Priority
2 of 4

Recommendation. Split standard from exception cutoff review so the standard path clears automatically and only exceptions wait for a human. Validate first: the true volume of exceptions versus standard items, and whether the day-4 constraint is a policy or a habit.

Finding 03 · Key-person dependency Low confidence

One person holds the credentials and the method for three close steps

Reported answers indicate that bank reconciliation, the fixed-asset roll-forward and the consolidation workbook all depend on a single individual. This is a continuity risk before it is an efficiency one.

Reported answerRange withheldValidation needed
Process
Multiple — bank rec, FA roll-forward, consolidation
Severity
High
Estimated impact
Not estimated — insufficient evidence
Confidence
Low — single self-reported answer
Complexity
Not assessed
Priority
3 of 4

We deliberately did not put a number on this. One questionnaire answer is not enough to size a continuity risk, and a fabricated range would be worse than none. Validate first: which steps genuinely lack a documented backup owner, and whether documentation exists but is simply unused.

Finding 04 · Automation readiness High confidence

Your stack is unusually well-suited to automating the first step

NetSuite, Bill.com, Ramp and ADP all expose documented APIs, and none of the priority findings depend on a system without one. This is a positive finding: the constraint here is process definition, not technical feasibility.

Reported systemsVerified availabilityReady to scope
Process
Cross-system data flow
Severity
Not applicable — strength
Estimated impact
Reduces build risk on findings 01 and 02
Confidence
High — vendor API availability is verifiable
Complexity
Low
Priority
Enabler

Recommendation. Start with finding 01 — it has the largest range and no technical blocker. Note: API availability is not the same as a working integration. We verify the specific endpoints before promising an automation.

What this report is not

The free report has real limits. Here they are.

A diagnostic built from self-reported answers can tell you where to look. It cannot tell you what is true inside your ledger.

What the free report gives you
  • A structured read of where the close is serial rather than parallel
  • Ranked findings with impact ranges and explicit confidence levels
  • An honest "not enough evidence" where a number would be invented
  • A defensible starting point for a conversation with your board
  • Enough to decide whether paying for more is worth it
What only the paid assessment gives you
  • Figures verified against your actual data, not your recollection
  • A mapped current state for the priority workflow, not a summary
  • A future-state design you could hand to an engineer
  • A working AI finance skill grounded and cited to your numbers
  • One deployed automation, with savings measured after it runs

The paid next step

What changes when Northbridge pays $1,500.

The same four findings get taken apart properly. Finding 01's "14–22 hrs" becomes a measured figure from an observed close. Finding 03's withheld estimate either gets a number or gets formally closed as not material. And one automation actually ships.

Run my Flight Check See what's included

You keep the free report either way

There is no version of this where you run a Flight Check and end up with nothing. The findings are yours, the reasoning is shown, and if the honest answer is "your close is fine, don't spend money on this" — that is a legitimate outcome we are willing to reach.

Delivery & contracting: BetterWrk · Austin, Texas

Your turn

Now run the real one.

Free, adaptive, no logins or ledger data, and your result appears before we ask for an email.

Run the free Flight Check Book 20 minutes