Explain the movements in a set of results — decompose each variance, propose a driver with its evidence and draft the commentary — with materiality thresholds, traceable figures and a named human signing the narrative.
Commentary that reads well can hide concentrated risk
Aggregate commentary quality can look acceptable while a small number of reporting cohorts carry most of the rewrites and nearly all of the drivers that did not survive review. Nestack reports performance by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Lines with offsetting movements
5.7%
3.8×
Review
Restated or reclassified comparatives
4.2%
2.8×
Review
Foreign-currency and acquired entities
2.8%
1.9×
Watch
Steady-state repeat lines
1.1%
0.7×
Normal
Bar: lift vs. steady-state baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
Each reviewer edit is kept as a label
The labels are a by-product of review — every sentence a reviewer rewrites records the driver proposed and the one the business recognised.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Rewrite rate, unexplained residuals or missed material lines rise in a cohort.
02Diagnose
Traced to the comparative basis, a driver rule or a missing source.
03Improve
The threshold, basis or driver rule is re-approved by the reporting owner.
04Verify
The change is re-drafted against the periods whose commentary was rewritten.
05Learn
The reviewer's own wording becomes the reference answer for that line.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. Next period's draft is scored against every sentence the last one had rewritten.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, decomposition, drafting and review, evaluation, then a parallel reporting cycle and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Reporting-line and materiality-threshold discovery.
02ERP and planning-system API assessment.
03Comparative basis and adjusted-measure definitions.
04Actuals, plan and comparative ingestion.
05Movement sizing and decomposition logic.
06Evidence linking and source resolution.
07Driver proposal and confidence scoring.
08Commentary drafting and house wording rules.
09Reviewer edit, sign-off and audit trail.
10Evaluation suite and regression periods.
11Reporting-pack assembly and write-back.
12Observability, deployment and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne reporting packProductionProduction integrationAdvancedMultiple entities / systems
Introduced at Pilot
Movement sizing and thresholds✓✓✓
Human sign-off on every narrative✓✓✓
Baseline evaluation✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Price, volume and mix decomposition—✓✓
Every driver linked to its figures—✓✓
Drafted commentary in house wording—✓✓
Reviewer edit and audit trail—✓✓
Observability and evaluation—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
FX and acquisition separation——✓
Multi-entity consolidated packs——✓
Enterprise controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on reporting structure, ERP, planning and consolidation integrations, entity count, decomposition depth and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your reporting structure and the lines you explain→Reporting-line and materiality-threshold discoveryWeek 1
02Percentage and absolute thresholds, per account→Movement sizing rules and the review gateWeek 1
03Your comparative basis and adjusted-measure definitions→Basis rules, and FX and acquisition separationWeek 2
04Access to the ledger, planning and consolidation systems→API assessment, then actuals, plan and comparative ingestionWeek 2
05The volumes, rates and operational data behind the lines→Decomposition logic, evidence linking and source resolutionWeek 3
06Recent packs, including one whose commentary was rewritten→Evaluation suite, regression periods and failure-mode testingWeek 4
07Named preparers, reviewers and the reporting owner→Reviewer edit and sign-off workflow, then a parallel cycleWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Phases are drawn over the weeks they actually occupy. Week 5 drafts a live period alongside your analysts, so the two sets of wording can be read side by side.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Reporting lines, thresholds and the comparative basis agreedW2Ledger, plan and consolidation ingestion, and the first decompositionW3Driver proposal, evidence linking and confidence logicW4Evaluation against past packs, and failure-mode testingW5Parallel drafting on a live period — commentary written, nothing publishedW6Reviewer sign-off in production, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandBars span only the weeks their work is named in. Evaluation and the parallel drafting run genuinely overlap in week 5.
At the end of W6One reporting cycle has been drafted in parallel and read line by line against what your team wrote, then Agent Care takes over monitoring.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks, sequenced so the parallel run lands on a real reporting cycle.
Next step · Accounting AI agent
Build a variance and commentary copilot around your reporting cycle.
Show us your reporting lines, your materiality thresholds and a recent pack with the commentary your team wrote. We'll score a draft against what your team actually published last period and show you the gap.
