Tell the story of the quarter that missed its deadline

• Tell me about the most recent quarter-end where reports were late, what happened and who first raised the issue?
• Estimate how many client accounts required manual reconciliation during that cycle Options: Fewer than 50, 50 to 150, 151 to 300, 301 to 500, More than 500, Unsure
• Which report types and client deliverables were delayed or required post-delivery corrections Options: Performance reports, Statement of holdings, Cash flow reports, Composite disclosures, Custom client decks, Other
• Who on your team handled the reconciliation work and how many full time equivalents did that consume for the quarter Options: Operations team, Client reporting team, Middle office, Outsourced partner, Combination of the above
• When you compare the final reports to the source systems, what were the most common reconciliation discrepancies you found

Where the data flow breaks and why it matters

• If another late or inaccurate quarter could cost you a client, which single reporting failure would make you walk away immediately
• Walk me through the reconciliation path from the custodian feed to the final client report for a single account, naming the systems and manual steps
• Describe the specific data fields or record types that most frequently mismatch between sources, for example positions, prices, or corporate actions Options: Positions, Prices, Corporate actions, Transactions, Identifiers (ISIN/CUSIP), Other
• On a typical quarter, where do exceptions most often appear in the pipeline — upstream in feeds, during calculations, or in template rendering Options: Upstream in feeds, During calculations, Template rendering and formatting, Multiple stages, Unsure
• If you could remove one manual step in that flow, which would it be and would removing it materially reduce your risk of late delivery

Who bears the risk and who makes the call

• Who ultimately signs off on quarterly client reports, and what objective criteria would lead them to withhold approval
• Which internal stakeholder groups must be informed before a production cutover and which must give explicit approval Options: Client reporting, Operations, Compliance, Legal, CTO/Engineering, CFO/Finance, Relationship managers
• How many people across operations, compliance, and relationship teams are required to sign or review client reports Options: 1 to 3, 4 to 7, 8 to 15, More than 15, Varies by client
• Identify any internal groups that would resist replacing the current reporting process and the primary reason for their resistance Options: Cost concerns, Operational disruption, Integration risk, Loss of customization, Unclear ROI, No resistance identified
• Are you able to run a parallel production for one quarter while maintaining current client commitments, yes or no Options: Yes, No, Need more details to decide

What accuracy and timing actually look like for you

• What accuracy and delivery windows must any replacement achieve for you to be willing to commit within a single quarter
• Select the primary success metrics you will use during the sample-quarter evaluation Options: All reports delivered within 2 business days of quarter close, Zero unresolved reconciliation exceptions, Valuation variance ≤ 0.1% across accounts, Client-specific templates matched exactly, End-to-end run time under 6 hours
• Choose which tradeoffs would be acceptable during an initial rollout, minor formatting differences, small valuation footnotes, or phased cutover by client segment Options: Minor formatting differences, Valuation footnotes for edge cases, Phased cutover by client size or complexity, No tradeoffs acceptable
• Estimate the annual revenue or assets under management at risk if a key institutional client left following a reporting failure Options: Less than 1% of AUM, 1% to 5% of AUM, 5% to 15% of AUM, More than 15% of AUM, Prefer not to disclose
• Would procurement and legal be prepared to sign within two weeks if the sample-quarter met your stated metrics Options: Yes, No, Only with pre-approved contract terms, Unsure

The alternatives on your table

• Name the option you are most likely to pursue next, incumbent retention, building internally, or engaging a new vendor, and why Options: Stay with incumbent, Internal rebuild, New vendor evaluation, Hybrid approach, Undecided
• List the vendors or internal efforts you have evaluated so far and the maturity stage of each effort Options: Scoping, Pilot planning, Pilot in progress, Negotiation, No formal evaluation
• Describe the specific improvements in reliability or cost that would make retaining your current process the rational choice
• Has anyone on your team proposed solving this without an outside vendor and what resource estimate did they provide in person-months Options: No internal proposal, Under 3 person-months, 3 to 6 person-months, 6 to 12 person-months, More than 12 person-months
• Indicate which option would move to contract fastest if a sample quarter validated its value Options: Incumbent quick renewal, Internal build with existing resources, New vendor with standard contract, New vendor requiring bespoke terms

Concrete readiness and technical gates

• Point to the single technical dependency that could stop the project before it begins, for example missing API access, unavailable custodian feeds, or no dedicated data owner
• Select the source systems that must be connected for the evaluation Options: Custodian feed(s), Portfolio accounting system, Market data provider, CRM, Billing system, Trade blotter, Other
• Who in your organization owns credentials and API access to each source system and are those credentials currently available for a vendor sandbox Options: Credentials available now, Credentials available with an NDA, Credentials require procurement approval, Credentials not currently available, Unsure
• Provide your best percent range for how much of the source data you expect will require cleansing before ingestion, for example missing identifiers or stale prices Options: 0 to 1%, 1 to 5%, 5 to 15%, More than 15%, Unsure
• Would you pause the evaluation if required systems could not provide data within two weeks, or would you extend internal deadlines to accommodate integration Options: Pause evaluation, Extend internal deadlines, Proceed with partial data, Need to escalate to leadership

Pilot criteria, cutover authority, and deal accelerators

• Point to the single failure mode during the sample-quarter that would cause you to halt the program immediately, for example a systemic valuation variance or more than 2% unresolved exceptions
• Choose the acceptance criteria you will use to judge the sample-quarter Options: Timing: deliver within 2 business days of close, Accuracy: valuation variance ≤ 0.1% across accounts, Reconciliations: unresolved exceptions ≤ 0.5% of accounts, Formatting: client templates preserved, Performance: production run under 6 hours
• Who will be the formal sign-off authority for the sample-quarter results from compliance, operations, and client reporting Options: Head of Client Reporting, Head of Operations, Head of Compliance, CFO, Cross-functional committee
• Indicate the artifacts you expect to review during evaluation, for example raw reconciliation logs, a set of sample client reports, calculation worksheets, and run-time metrics Options: Raw reconciliation logs, Sample client reports, Calculation spreadsheets, Run-time and performance reports, Audit trail and change logs
• Assuming the pilot meets all acceptance criteria, who can approve a phased cutover and what is the shortest realistic contract timeline you can accept Options: Operations sign-off only, 2 weeks, Procurement and legal sign-off, 4 weeks, Board-level approval required, 8+ weeks, Other

• Integrate custodian data feeds
• Connect portfolio accounting system
• Aggregate market and reference data feeds
• Map and normalize source data
• Run performance calculations and composite construction
• Configure report templates and branding
• Enable advisor self-service template builder
• Configure compliance disclosures and GIPS settings
• Generate client-ready reports (PDF, CSV, portal)
• Set up delivery workflows and digital portal access
• Run parallel production with legacy comparison
• Investigate and resolve reconciliation exceptions

Integrate custodian data feeds

• Do you currently receive custodian feeds via SFTP, REST API, cloud bucket, or another transport? Indicate all that apply. Options: SFTP, REST API, S3/Cloud bucket, Secure FTP with token, Email drop / manual file
• Which custodians supply the feeds you want integrated for the evaluation quarter?
• What file formats and schemas do the custodian feeds use for positions and transactions (for example: CSV with CUSIP/ISIN columns, JSON position snapshots)? Options: CSV position/transaction files, JSON API payloads, XML, Fixed-width exports, Other
• How often do those custodian feeds refresh during a quarter (end-of-day, intra-day, end-of-day plus trade blotter) for the accounts in scope? Options: End of day only, End of day + trade blotter intra-day, Intraday updates (hourly or more), Ad-hoc files
• Who on your operations team owns custodian connectivity and can provide test endpoints and credentials for the sample quarter?
• When you run the evaluation, do you require historical feed replay for the quarter (full dated snapshots) or only a closing snapshot per day? Options: Full dated snapshots for each day, Daily closing snapshot only, Trade-level history only, Other

Connect portfolio accounting system

• Where does your primary portfolio accounting export come from (name your current platform category: hosted accounting system, in‑house ledger export, or administrator batch file)? Options: Hosted portfolio accounting system export, In-house accounting ledger export, Administrator batch file, Manual spreadsheet extracts
• Are ledger-level files available for positions, cash ledgers, corporate actions, and fees for the evaluation quarter? Options: Yes all four ledgers available, Partial: positions and cash only, Only summary NAVs available, Other
• List the position identifier conventions used in your accounting export for the quarter (for example CUSIP, ISIN, internal position id).
• Provide the sample file or schema for trade-level and position-level exports that the integration will map against.
• Specify whether the accounting export includes composite tags or strategy codes needed to build performance composites for the sample quarter. Options: Composite/strategy codes included, Composite mapping in separate file, No composite information
• Identify any known gaps between the accounting export and custodian feeds that historically cause reconciliation flags (for example missing corporate actions, cash mismatches).

Aggregate market and reference data feeds

• Confirm which pricing sources should be used for the evaluation quarter (vendor prices, custodian prices, in-house pricing, or a blended rule). Options: Vendor market data, Custodian-supplied prices, In-house pricing table, Blended rule with precedence
• Estimate how many unique securities (by CUSIP/ISIN) appear in the sample quarter that require pricing and corporate action handling. Options: Less than 500, 500-2,000, 2,000-10,000, More than 10,000
• Indicate whether you require FX rates for cross-currency positions and, if so, the vendor or internal FX table to use for the quarter. Options: Vendor FX feed, Custodian FX, In-house FX table, Not required
• Choose the reference data attributes required for reporting and reconciliations (for example: issuer name, security type, settlement currency, lot-level cost). Options: Issuer name, Security type, Settlement currency, Lot-level cost basis, CUSIP/ISIN mapping
• Upload or describe any corporate-action rules or overrides you expect applied when reconstructing NAVs for the quarter (for example, treatment of spin-offs or mergers).
• Attach any SLA or currency valuation cut-off times the platform must obey for generating quarter-end pricing.

Map and normalize source data

• Enter the primary mapping keys to align custodian and accounting records (for instance: account number, position id, trade id).
• Select which identifier precedence rule to use when resolving mismatched securities across feeds. Options: Prefer ISIN then CUSIP, Prefer custodian identifier, Prefer accounting system identifier, Custom precedence mapping
• Describe any custom normalization rules needed for security descriptions, corporate actions, or fee codes in your operations workflow.
• Outline expected tolerances for numeric normalization (price rounding, quantity rounding) used when comparing position-level values across sources. Options: Round to 2 decimals, Round to 4 decimals, Exact integer quantities, Custom tolerances
• Explain how you currently handle orphan trades or unmatched cash items so the mapping rules can mirror or improve that process.
• State whether you require an automated mapping workbook that documents field-level transforms for handoff to your operations team. Options: Yes, provide workbook, No, mapping will be handled ad hoc

Run performance calculations and composite construction

• Name the performance standards you require for the evaluation (for example: GIPS total return, time-weighted rate of return). Options: GIPS time-weighted return, Modified Dietz, Money-weighted return, Custom calculation
• Share your current composite definitions and the rules used to include accounts in each composite for the sample quarter.
• Mark whether you require gross-of-fees, net-of-fees, or both performance series for each composite. Options: Gross-of-fees, Net-of-fees, Both
• Flag any adjustments or overrides applied in your legacy calculations that must be reproduced (for example: manual cash flow timing corrections). Options: Manual cash flow timing corrections, Security-level return overrides, Benchmark adjustments, None
• Clarify the desired attribution granularity for the evaluation (composite-level, account-level, sector allocation). Options: Composite-level only, Account-level attribution, Sector and security attribution
• Verify whether you require a reconciliation report that traces each performance line back to the source ledger entries for audit purposes. Options: Yes, full audit trail, Yes, summary reconciliation only, No

Configure report templates and branding

• Approve the list of templated report sections required for the quarter (for example: executive summary, performance tables, holdings, transactions, disclosures). Options: Executive summary, Performance tables, Holdings, Transactions, Required disclosures
• Set the branding and style constraints for PDF output (logo placement, fonts, color palette, page size) that must be enforced for compliance review.
• Apply any client-specific layout requirements that advisors currently request and want available in the template builder.
• Map which disclosure blocks must be conditionally included based on composite type or jurisdiction (for example: GIPS composite disclosure, country-specific tax notes).
• Normalize your current PDF generation cadence and indicate whether single PDF per client or split PDFs per account are required. Options: Single client PDF, Separate PDFs per account, Both options
• Describe any accessibility or archive format requirements for generated reports (for example: searchable PDF, PDF/A, CSV attachments). Options: Searchable PDF, PDF/A archival, CSV attachments required, Other

Enable advisor self-service template builder

• Define which advisor roles should have template edit rights and which should be view-only during the evaluation period. Options: Advisor edit rights, Compliance-only edit, View-only for advisors, Custom role mapping
• Describe the types of drag-and-drop template elements advisors must be able to configure (tables, charts, disclosures, custom text blocks). Options: Tables, Charts, Disclosures, Custom text blocks, Client-specific cover pages
• Name any template validations required by compliance (for example: mandatory disclosure present, minimum font size) that the builder must enforce.
• Share whether you need version history and approval workflows inside the template builder for each template change. Options: Version history + approvals, Version history only, No version control
• Indicate whether advisor templates must support conditional content per client jurisdiction or investor type. Options: Conditional per jurisdiction, Conditional per investor type, Not required
• Verify the maximum number of distinct advisor templates you will provision for the evaluation (estimate). Options: 1-5, 6-20, 21-50, More than 50

Configure compliance disclosures and GIPS settings

• Name the specific GIPS reporting elements you require in the evaluation (composite descriptions, benchmark definitions, performance history).
• Share whether your compliance team requires automated verification of GIPS-required fields before PDF generation. Options: Yes, automated verification, No, manual review only, Hybrid: automated alerts + manual sign-off
• Mark any jurisdictional disclosure text blocks that must be included based on client country in the sample quarter.
• Outline how fees, soft dollars, or fee waivers are recorded in your accounting export so net-of-fees calculations align with compliance expectations.
• Clarify whether you need a compliance sign-off workflow for each template iteration during evaluation. Options: Compliance sign-off required per template, Sign-off required only for final template, No sign-off required
• Confirm any record-retention or audit log requirements for generated reports tied to GIPS validation. Options: 7 years retention, 5 years retention, Custom retention

Generate client-ready reports (PDF, CSV, portal)

• List the report outputs you need for the quarter: consolidated client PDF, per-account PDF, CSV holdings, or portal-only dashboards. Options: Consolidated client PDF, Per-account PDF, CSV holdings export, Portal interactive report
• Which export formats require exact legacy parity in layout and pagination for client comparison? Options: Consolidated PDF parity, Per-account PDF parity, CSV structure parity, No legacy parity required
• How long is acceptable for the platform to generate the full set of evaluation quarter PDFs compared with your legacy process (provide a target threshold). Options: Less than 30 minutes, 30-120 minutes, More than 120 minutes
• Provide a measurable acceptance criterion for report accuracy and formatting parity for the evaluation (for example: >= 99.5% position-level match, PDF page sequence identical).
• Select whether the evaluation must include embedded drill-downs in the portal and which user groups should access them. Options: Portal drill-downs for advisors, Portal drill-downs for clients, Restricted to advisors only, Not required
• State any encryption, watermarking, or redaction rules that must be applied to PDFs before delivery in the sample run.

Set up delivery workflows and digital portal access

• Select the delivery channels required for the evaluation quarter: secure portal push, SFTP delivery to custodian, email with secure link, or API delivery to an LMS. Options: Secure portal push, SFTP to custodian, Email secure link, API delivery
• Assign the stakeholder list who must receive reports or notifications for the evaluation (operations contact, compliance reviewer, relationship manager).
• Set any delivery timing constraints relative to quarter close (for example: reports delivered within 3 business days of quarter close). Options: Within 1 business day, Within 3 business days, Within 5 business days, Custom
• Establish portal authentication method for client and advisor users during the evaluation (single sign-on, email magic link, username/password). Options: Single sign-on (SSO), Email magic link, Username/password, Client-managed authentication
• Determine retention and access controls for delivered reports in the portal (how long should historical quarter PDFs be retained and who can access them). Options: Retain 1 year, Retain 3 years, Retain 7 years, Custom retention policy
• Authorize any required network or firewall changes to allow portal callbacks or SFTP deliveries for test endpoints. Options: Firewall exceptions ready, Need network change request, Unknown, need help identifying

• success_criteria
• gaps
• current_state
• desired_state
• stakeholders
• decision_readiness
• stakeholders
• gaps
• desired_state
• success_criteria
• decision_readiness
• current_state
• stakeholders
• current_state
• desired_state
• decision_readiness
• gaps
• success_criteria
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness

• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Order Form / Subscription Agreement
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Evaluation Acceptance Certificate
• Parallel Production Cutover Plan & Timeline
• Financial Services Data Addendum (DPA & Residency/SOC 2)
• Service Level Agreement (SLA)
• Commercial Terms Appendix (Pricing & Payment Details)
• Change Order Agreement

• Go-live health check (weeks 1-4)
• First measurement review (weeks 4-10)
• Acceptance gate review (around day 90)
• Quarterly success review (ongoing)

• Run a quarterly training refresher for advisor teams on template configuration to reduce ad-hoc requests and formatting exceptions.
• Document any calculation differences versus legacy outputs with a client-facing explanation for advisor review.
• Deliver the finalized acceptance dataset and report package to reviewers ahead of the acceptance gate meeting.
• Restate acceptance criteria and targets
• Formal acceptance decision recorded with a named buyer signatory for the acceptance outcome.
• Remediation items for any failed criteria documented with owners and resolution dates.
• Incumbent system decommissioning or retention and data archive plan documented to prevent dual-running.
• Publish the acceptance decision and remediation log including the named buyer signatory into the shared workspace.
• Execute the agreed incumbent decommission or read-only retention steps and deliver the data archive/migration status report.
• Open tickets for each remediation item with target resolution dates and escalate any items that block full acceptance.
• KPI trend review since acceptance
• Maintain or improve percent of reports delivered within the target window and reduce reconciliation exception rate quarter over quarter.
• Ensure critical tickets are on a documented burn-down path with owners and dates.
• Agree a prioritized list of enhancement requests that impact delivery or accuracy with scheduling decisions.
• Close or escalate high-priority production tickets and publish the updated burn-down status before the next review.
• Schedule approved enhancement work into the next delivery window and publish scope and timelines.
• Re-confirm success criteria and owners
• Confirm integrations are running and scheduled jobs completed without critical errors.
• Verify that core users have access and initial training is complete.
• Triage and assign owners and target dates for all open blockers requiring remediation in the first 30 days.
• Produce a short remediation plan listing each open integration or data exception, its root cause hypothesis, and an owner with a target resolution date.
• Run a signed-off smoke test of the primary report generation flow and circulate results to stakeholders.
• Enable monitoring alerts for connector errors and scheduled a daily check-in until stability is confirmed.
• Present first-period metrics and legacy comparison
• Establish whether average days late per quarter and reconciliation exception count per quarter are trending toward Solution Scope targets.
• Agree the top 3 root causes for any metric gaps and assigned corrective actions with dates.
• Confirm the timeline and dataset readiness for the acceptance gate review.
• Implement agreed reconciliation rule changes and retest the sample-quarter calculation to verify exception reduction.
• Present outcome data against each acceptance criterion
• Operational issues and ticket burn-down
• Deployment and integration validation
• Diagnose gaps and root causes
• Document pass or fail per criterion and capture acceptance
• User access and onboarding status
• Enhancement requests and prioritization
• Validate performance-calculation alignment
• Verify incumbent system is not being used
• Agree remediation plan for any failed criteria
• Early adoption and usage signals
• Prioritize corrective actions and timeline to acceptance gate
• Confirm readiness items for the acceptance dataset
• Incumbent system wind-down confirmation
• Agree next steps and owners
• Open issues, blockers, and immediate remediation