Accounting position memos, researched and drafted with a citation on every sentence
Every accounting question answered from your own policies and the standards, with a citation on every sentence, and the position memo drafted for sign-off.
See one case, screen by screen ↓A deal closes, an alliance invoices, a voucher is bought — and someone in deal accounting asks technical accounting what it means for the quarter. The answer depends on the policy manual, on what the company did last time, and on the standard at paragraph level. Then it has to be written up as a memo the external auditor will read before the audit committee.
Most of that time is not judgment. It goes on finding the right section of a 412-page policy manual, digging out the prior memo on the same fact pattern, re-reading the standards and the contract, and writing the memo section by section. And the hardest problem hides in plain sight: the policy says one thing, a signed memo from two years ago did another, and nobody notices until the auditor does.
Estimated split for a typical significant-judgment memo, by hand and with the solution.
Six specialist agents route the question, search policy, precedent and the standards, flag conflicts, draft the memo and check every citation; a named person decides each judgment and the controller signs.
Northwind Bio closed its purchase of Tamsin Biosciences on Sep 22. On working day 5 of the Q3 close, the deal accountant asks technical accounting what it is and what gets expensed. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Maya opens the solution on working day 5 of the Q3 close, 21 days before the audit committee. Six memos are open, four of them due to the external auditor by Oct 16. At the top of her list: Sam Patel’s Tamsin question, forwarded at 08:12.
Needs you: “Sam Patel asks about the Tamsin acquisition · Business combination or asset acquisition · forwarded 08:12.”
Maya presses Research. The question router labels it ASC 805 and ASC 730, deal Tamsin Biosciences, period Q3 2026. The retriever pulls four policy passages, the Elmstead memo from November 2024 and the July audit committee paper; the standards researcher finds 805-10-55-5A, 805-50-30 and 730-10-25-2(c); the agreement and the valuation report are read at §2.3, §2.5, §6.4 and page 4.
Every step is shown as it runs, with what it found.
TMS-118 holds 93.3% of the fair value of the gross assets, and policy treats 90% or more as “substantially all” — so it is an asset acquisition, with no goodwill. The cost is spread by relative fair value, TMS-118 and TMS-207 are expensed to R&D on the close date, and the up-to-$350M milestones are not booked at close. Click a citation and the exact passage opens on the right, highlighted — here, page 4 of the valuation report.
“6 agents · 7.0 s” · “Every sentence cited” · “16 citations · 8 sources” · “Confidence 94%”
Tamsin holds $12.4M in escrow for its three founders for 18 months. Policy §7.2.6 treats payments that depend on staying as pay for future work; the signed Elmstead memo put a similar payment into the purchase price. Both passages are cited, and acquired R&D shows as a range — $384.5M to $396.4M — until someone decides.
“Tamsin holds $12.4M in escrow for the three founders for 18 months — you decide which view the memo takes.”
Maya drafts M-311 straight from the answer. Nine facts come out of the agreement and the valuation report, the memo is written in house template v4 — eight sections and a journal entry — and the citation verifier checks every citation. One thing is left for a person: the founder retention.
Judgment finder: “1 decision for you: founder retention ($12.4M).”
Option A follows policy §7.2.6: $384.5M of acquired R&D in Q3, plus $12.4M of compensation over 18 months ($0.2M in Q3). Option B follows the Elmstead precedent: $396.4M, no separate charge, recorded as a policy exception for the committee. Maya picks A and her reason goes on the record with her name and the time.
“The agents do not decide judgments — pick the view the memo takes, and your reason is recorded with your name and the time.”
Sections 5 to 7 are written from her choice: the business combination view and capitalising TMS-118 rejected with reasons, the conclusion, the financial statement impact and disclosure, and the journal entry dated Sep 22, 2026 that ties to $431.4M. The memo moves to v0.3 with 21 citations from 8 sources, all verified.
M-311 is over $100M of impact, so it needs the corporate controller and the chief accounting officer. Signing locks the version; any later change creates a new one. The meaning — “Approved as management’s position for Q3 2026” — and the time go to the audit trail with each signature.
Priya signs v1.0 and Ruth co-signs. The activity trail shows every step from the cited answer at 09:14 to both signatures at 09:16 — who did it, agent or person, and what changed. The memo is ready to share with the external auditor, due Oct 16.
The founder-retention conflict is logged as gap G-1, High, with the policy text and what the Elmstead memo did side by side. It sits with four others — a Larkspur presentation conflict, a pre-launch inventory conflict, a manual silent on priority review vouchers and lease wording that predates the 2019 standard. Each can be drafted as a policy update for the committee, or dismissed with a reason.
The same memo, seen by the people who ask, prepare, sign and audit it — what their close looked like, and what it looks like now.
Six specialist agents route the question, search policy, precedent and the standards, flag conflicts, draft the memo and check every citation; a named person decides each judgment and the controller signs.
Reads each question and labels the standard, the deal or alliance, the entity and the period, then picks the sources to search.
Searches the policy manual, prior memos and audit committee papers for the passages, with section and page, that decide the question — always including the most recent signed memo on the same fact pattern.
Finds the paragraph-level standards references, such as 805-10-55-5A, and the plain-language summaries for them.
Compares what the policy says with what signed memos and the ledger actually did, and logs every difference as a policy gap.
Drafts the position memo in the house template, section by section, with a citation on every sentence, an alternatives section and the journal entry — and turns every open judgment into a decision with each option’s effect on the numbers.
Checks that every sentence in an answer or memo is supported by the passage it cites, ties out the numbers, and removes any sentence that is not supported.
Decide each judgment, then sign. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Anyone in finance can ask about a policy, a memo or a standard — or tell it what to change. Every answer is cited.
Explain the screen test for Tamsin
TMS-118 holds 93.3% of the fair value of the gross assets, excluding cash. Our policy treats 90% or more as “substantially all”, and the standard says such a set is not a business — so Tamsin is an asset acquisition: no goodwill, cost spread by relative fair value.
Why does the Tamsin memo need my decision?
Because policy and practice disagree on the $12.4M founder retention. Policy §7.2.6 treats stay-conditioned payments as pay for future work; the Elmstead memo put a similar payment into the price. Option A (policy) puts acquired R&D in Q3 at $384.5M; option B (Elmstead) at $396.4M. I opened the memo at the decision.
Show every conflict between policy and practice
Five gaps are open, three of them conflicts: founder retention — policy §7.2.6 against the Elmstead memo; Larkspur reimbursements — §4.3.2 says revenue, practice reduces R&D; pre-launch inventory — §6.1.5 against memo M-310. Plus a silent topic (priority review vouchers) and outdated lease wording.
Block sign-off on any memo without an alternatives section
Done — a new rule: sign-off is blocked when a memo has no “Alternatives considered and rejected” section. It is the section auditors ask for most often. The rule is in Settings, under Answer rules, and recorded in the audit trail.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Who reviews, who signs, how sure an answer must be and what a memo must contain are settings, not a project.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Every sentence must cite a passage | On | Unsupported sentences are removed |
| Flag differences between policy and practice | On | Shows the conflict and logs a policy gap |
| Answer only from the library | On | If nothing is found, send it to a person |
| Send to a person below | 80% confidence | 70 · 80 · 90 % |
| Block sign-off without an alternatives section | Off | On · Off |
| Technical review — every memo | Technical accounting | Technical accounting or the corporate controller |
| Sign-off up to $100M impact | Corporate controller | Corporate controller or technical accounting |
| Memo template | House template v4 — 8 sections | Short-form memo under $5M |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample company data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate (research hours at 1 hour a week for 200 finance staff) · “typical” = published figures (practitioner guides to memo drafting — about four hours to write a memo, about 30 minutes to review a draft). People, companies and products named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
A memo that documents management’s accounting conclusion on a significant judgment — the question, the facts, the applicable literature, the analysis, the alternatives considered and rejected, the conclusion and the financial statement impact — signed and shared with the external auditor. The Memo Copilot researches it from your own policies, prior memos and the standards and drafts it in your house template.
The question router labels the standard, deal and period; the retriever finds the policy passages, the latest signed memo on the same fact pattern and the relevant audit committee papers; the standards researcher adds paragraph-level references. The citation verifier removes any sentence its source does not support.
Only your library: the policy manual, prior memos, audit committee papers, standards summaries and the contracts under review. If nothing answers the question with enough confidence, it says so and sends it to technical accounting rather than guessing.
The practice conflict checker shows the conflict under the answer, citing both the policy passage and the memo that did it differently, and logs it as a policy gap. From there a policy update can be drafted for the policy committee, or the gap dismissed with a reason.
Yes. The agents never decide a judgment — they present the options and each one’s effect on the numbers. The preparer chooses and records a reason, and the memo is signed with dated signatures: the corporate controller, and the chief accounting officer as well above $100M.
No. It cites the standards at paragraph level and works from plain-language summaries; the licensed text opens through the licence holder’s link.
Yes. The confidence threshold, the answer rules, who does technical review, who signs at each level of impact, whether sign-off is blocked without an alternatives section, and the memo template are all settings.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements — your policy manual, house memo template and a sample of past memos — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own judgments first.
Every study's quarter-end accrual built from contracts, activity and invoices, with the evidence for every line.
1-min filmRebate ReservesEvery quarter's rebate reserves rebuilt from source, with a citation on every number the auditor asks about.
1-min filmMedicaid RebatesEvery state invoice checked line by line, every dispute backed by the claim rows behind it.
1-min filmWe’ll run the Memo Copilot on your own policy manual and a sample of your past memos.