What does Finrep do for SEC reporting teams?

Finrep provides purpose-built workflows for SEC reporting including roll-forward analysis, peer alignment benchmarking, comment letter risk detection, filing readiness checks, and AI-assisted disclosure drafting — all grounded in evidence and peer precedent.

How does Finrep help with 10-K and 10-Q drafting?

Finrep's Disclosure Drafting workflow drafts or refines 10-K and 10-Q sections using peer precedent, prior period language, and applicable ASC guidance as grounding sources. Every output is traceable to its source.

Can Finrep help respond to SEC comment letters?

Yes. Finrep's Comment Letter Response workflow drafts substantive, defensible responses to SEC staff comment letters by referencing peer company responses and applicable accounting guidance.

What workflows does Finrep offer for CFO and Controller teams?

Finrep offers Certification Readiness, Cross-Period Consistency, and Board Briefing workflows — covering pre-certification risk summaries, narrative consistency checks, and audit committee-ready disclosure summaries.

Does Finrep support ESG and sustainability reporting?

Yes. Finrep includes ESG Disclosure Benchmark and ESG Regulatory Monitoring workflows, supporting TCFD, SASB, and GRI framework alignment as well as SEC climate disclosure rule tracking.

Which teams in the CFO office does Finrep support?

Finrep supports SEC Reporting, Technical Accounting, Legal Counsel, Investor Relations, Disclosure Committee, CFO and Controller, Tax Team, and ESG Reporting functions.

Can I control which lenses are applied?

Yes. Apply all three or select specific lenses. Run requirements-only if you want compliance gaps without peer comparison.

What does "language sharpening" mean specifically?

Identifying phrasing that hedges or obscures where the governing guidance expects directness. Hedging appropriate to the disclosure is retained; hedging that weakens required disclosure is flagged.

How is peer depth configured?

Match peer median, upper quartile, or a specific named peer. Peer set configurable by ticker, SIC, or GICS.

What does the rationale column contain?

One line per tracked change: the ASC paragraph or S-K section it closes, the language issue it fixes, or the peer source it matches.

Can I reject individual tracked changes?

Yes. Every change is individually accept/reject. Output is the enhanced draft with a documented record of accepted, edited, and rejected changes.

What section types can be enhanced?

Any narrative section: MD&A subsections, risk factors, financial statement notes, 8-K narratives, and policy disclosures.

Footnotes Drafting

Disclosure Enhancement

Disclosure enhancement turns a draft section from adequate into defensible. Finrep returns a strengthened version with tracked changes: gaps against applicable requirements closed, language sharpened where it was vague, depth raised where peers went deeper on the same ASC topic. Every change carries a plain-language rationale the disclosure committee can read in one pass.

3 lenses

Requirements, language, peer depth

Tracked changes

Every edit visible with rationale

Committee-ready

Rationale per change, one pass

See sample reports

Sample Disclosure Enhancement Reports

See what a Finrep disclosure enhancement looks like. Download and review the full output.

Today's reality

Disclosure Enhancement without Finrep

Enhancement relies on reviewer intuition, not a systematic comparison to requirements and peers
Vague language passes if no one notices it against the specific guidance paragraph
Depth gaps invisible without reading peer disclosures for the same ASC topic
Rationale for changes undocumented, reconstructed in committee if challenged

Footnotes Drafting · Drafting

Adequate and defensible are not the same thing. The SEC staff knows the difference.

A draft section that clears internal review has met the team's standard. That standard is not the same as the codification's standard, peer practice, or what the SEC staff expects to see for your sector.

Language that passed last quarter may have been vague relative to guidance. Depth that felt sufficient may be below what six of your ten peers now provide. Gaps that no one flagged exist because no one compared the draft to anything outside the team's institutional memory.

Without Finrep

Manual process

Enhancement relies on reviewer intuition, not a systematic comparison to requirements and peers
Vague language passes if no one notices it against the specific guidance paragraph
Depth gaps invisible without reading peer disclosures for the same ASC topic
Rationale for changes undocumented, reconstructed in committee if challenged

With Finrep

Automated workflow

Three-lens review applied systematically: requirements, language clarity, peer depth
Vague language flagged against the specific guidance paragraph it should satisfy
Depth gaps shown with peer excerpts for the same ASC topic
Every change carries a plain-language rationale ready for committee review

From adequate draft to defensible section in four steps

Submit your draft section

Upload the section to enhance: a single note, an MD&A subsection, a risk factor, or any narrative disclosure.

Finrep applies three enhancement lenses

Requirements: gaps against applicable ASC or S-K paragraphs identified. Language: vague or hedged phrasing flagged against what the guidance expects. Peer depth: sub-topics peers cover on the same ASC topic that the draft omits.

Review tracked changes with rationale

Strengthened version returned with tracked changes. Each change annotated: the requirement it closes, the language issue it fixes, or the peer depth it matches. One-line rationale per change.

Accept, edit, or reject each change

Review each tracked change against its rationale. Accept what strengthens, edit what needs adjustment, reject what does not apply. Output is a disclosed draft with a documented enhancement record.

What you get

Strengthened draft with tracked changes and plain-language rationale per edit

Ask FinaDisclosure Comparison

Footnotes Drafting

What Disclosure Enhancement does at a glance

Team: Footnotes Drafting
Filing phase: Drafting
Output: Strengthened draft with tracked changes and plain-language rationale per edit
Modules: Ask FinaDisclosure Comparison

What changes when enhancement is systematic, not intuitive

Requirement gap closure

Every gap against applicable ASC paragraphs or Regulation S-K requirements identified and closed in the enhanced draft. Enhancement cites the specific paragraph the change addresses: "Added per ASC 842-20-50-4(b): weighted-average discount rate not previously disclosed."

Language sharpening

Vague, hedged, or boilerplate language identified against the specificity the governing guidance expects. "May be affected by" tightened where the guidance expects a more direct characterization. Hedging retained where it is appropriate; removed where it obscures required disclosure.

Peer depth matching

Sub-topics peers cover on the same ASC topic that the draft omits are added with tracked changes. Peer source cited per addition. Depth level configurable: match peer median, upper quartile, or a specific named peer.

Committee-ready rationale per change

Every tracked change carries a one-line plain-language rationale: what it closes, what it sharpens, or what peer it matches. The disclosure committee reads the rationale column, not the redline. One pass.

Built for the people who take a draft from good enough to audit-ready

SEC Reporting Lead

Three-lens enhancement on any draft section. Tracked changes with rationale ready for committee review before the filing routes.

Disclosure Committee Member

Every tracked change carries a plain-language rationale. Your review covers substance, not line-by-line redlines.

FAQ

Requirements (gaps against ASC or S-K paragraphs), language (vague or hedged phrasing against guidance expectations), and peer depth (sub-topics peers cover on the same ASC topic that the draft omits).