A fictional monthly board pack checked against its own trial balance and facility agreement. All figures invented.
PRE-SEND CHECK · BOARD PACK + TB + FACILITY AGREEMENT
HOLD
Do not circulate — 2 blocking findings
24/100
GATE LOG · 6 QUOTES STRING-MATCHED, 1 BLOCKED · 2/2 COVENANTS RECOMPUTED · 14 FIGURES RECOMPUTED IN CODE
MATERIAL — FIX BEFORE CIRCULATING (2)
The covenant line says safe. The numbers say breached
CONTRADICTS THE NUMBERS · Commentary p2 vs facility agreement §9 + TB
PACK SAYS
"comfortably within banking covenants"
FACILITY + TB SAY
net debt / EBITDA at 3.4× against a 3.0× limit — breached ✓ code-computed
Why material: in a lender's hands, this reprices the company — the covenant line is the first thing a credit team reads.
SAFER WORDING
"Leverage stands at 3.4× against the 3.0× covenant — a waiver request is in progress (note 4)."
Operating profit is reported with the sign flipped
SIGN FLIP · Summary p1 vs TB recomputation
PACK SAYS
"operating profit £180k ahead of plan"
TB RECOMPUTES TO
£180k below plan — the variance is real, the direction isn't ✓ code-computed
Why material: the board minutes will record a number the accounts contradict — and the auditor reads both.
SAFER WORDING
"Operating profit was £180k below plan, driven by the two cost lines in section 3."
CREDIBILITY — YOU'D GET CHALLENGED (1)
"The cost programme remains on track to deliver £500k"
No phasing or delivery evidence in the supplied pack — marked unverifiable, not asserted as wrong — the audit committee will ask for the bridge.
WORTH HIGHLIGHTING (1)
Cash collections beat plan for the third consecutive month — verified to the ledger; lead the pack with it.
Send the pack — not a number the room can break.
Run a free document review →CHECKS CONSISTENCY AGAINST SUPPLIED EVIDENCE — NOT LEGAL OR AUDIT ADVICE.