Solution
For transaction advisory, quality-of-earnings, and deal teams at accounting firms and private equity funds: target financials normalized and a cited adjustment schedule drafted before the first workpaper review.
The problem
Audited statements disagree with management accounts, and the trial balance uses a chart of accounts nobody on the deal team has seen. Normalization eats the first weeks of every engagement.
The person most qualified to judge earnings quality spends the engagement mapping line items into the databook by hand.
An add-back that cannot be traced to a source page dies in partner review — or survives it and gets picked apart by the other side's advisors.
The product, not a promise
How it works
Pull audited statements, management accounts and trial balances from the data room, in any format.
Map every line item to a standard chart of accounts, reconciling periods, entities and currencies.
Flag one-off items, owner add-backs and working-capital swings as candidate QoE adjustments.
An analyst approves or rejects each adjustment against the cited source page.
Export a normalized databook and adjustment schedule the deal team can defend.
Who it's for
Diligence analyst
Engagement partner
Firm risk & IT
Every diligence engagement starts the same way: three years of target financials in four formats, none of which match. Audited statements disagree with management accounts; the trial balance uses a chart of accounts nobody on the deal team has seen. Before anyone can discuss earnings quality, someone has to normalize all of it by hand — usually your most senior analyst.
Botminds does the normalization. It reads audited financials, management accounts, trial balances, GL exports, and tax returns in whatever shape they arrive — scanned PDF, digital PDF, Excel — and maps every line item to a standard chart of accounts, reconciled across periods, entities, and currencies. Five times faster than manual spreading, with every number cited to the page it came from.
Normalization is the floor. On top of the standardized statements, the platform surfaces the items a QoE reviewer hunts for: one-off revenue and expense items, owner compensation add-backs, related-party transactions, working-capital swings, and period-over-period movements that break the trend. Each is presented as a candidate adjustment with the exact source page attached; an analyst accepts, rejects, or edits it. Nothing enters the adjustment schedule without a named sign-off.
The result is a databook the deal team can stand behind: normalized statements, an adjusted-EBITDA bridge, and a working-capital analysis where every figure links back to its document. When a number is challenged six weeks later — by the partner or by the other side’s advisors — the answer is one click: which document, what was adjusted, who approved it, and when.
Objections, answered
Check it. Every candidate adjustment arrives with the exact source page attached, and an analyst accepts, rejects, or edits it. Nothing enters the adjustment schedule without a named sign-off, and the trail records who approved what and when.
The mapping target is yours: your chart of accounts, your databook structure, your adjustment categories. The platform normalizes into that shape, so the deliverable looks like your firm's work — because it is.
In your private cloud or on-premises, certified to ISO 27001 and SOC 2, with engagement data segregated. The audit trail — source document, extraction, adjustment, approver — stays with the databook for as long as you retain it.
Yes. Intake is the data room as it stands — audited statements, management accounts, trial balances, GL exports, in any format. Normalization runs from there, and your team reviews the output the same way it would review a first-year associate's, only sooner.
Watch three years of mismatched target financials normalize into a cited databook with candidate adjustments attached.
Request a demo