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.

Does it compare against the prior period?

Primary function is within-filing consistency. For period-over-period comparison, use cross-period drift analysis.

How does it handle rounding differences?

Configurable tolerance threshold. Meaningful quantitative differences flagged, rounding artifacts filtered.

What does "unsupported metric change" mean?

A financial metric that changed materially (default: 10%+) between periods without corresponding MD&A, footnote, or policy disclosure.

Does it catch stale cross-references from roll-forward?

Yes. Renumbered notes with stale inline references flagged with the correct target identified.

Are thresholds configurable?

Yes. Materiality thresholds, monitored metrics, and cross-reference scope all configurable per filing.

When should I run the health check?

After substantive drafting is complete, before the filing routes to committee. Near-final form gives the most reliable gap report.

SEC Reporting

Filing Health Check

Filing health check scans your draft 10-K or 10-Q for internal inconsistencies before the filing routes: narrative drift without explanation, within-filing cross-reference mismatches, and material metric changes that lack disclosure support. Finrep reads the filing as a connected system and flags every issue with links to the specific locations.

Issue categories detected

Full filing

Every Item, footnote, and cross-reference

Location-linked

Every flag tied to exact draft locations

See sample reports

Sample Filing Health Check Reports

See what a Finrep filing health check looks like on real public company filings. Download and review the full output.

Today's reality

Filing Health Check without Finrep

No systematic cross-reference validation across the full filing
Narrative drift between sections goes undetected unless the same person reads both
Quantitative mismatches require manual tracing from MD&A to Item 8 to footnote
Material metric changes discovered reactively, often by SEC staff

SEC Reporting · Review

The filing was written by twenty people. Nobody read all of it.

Item 7 says revenue grew 12% driven by pricing. The ASC 606 disaggregation footnote shows the same line growing 11.4%. Both might be correct. The filing does not explain the difference. That is the kind of inconsistency a comment letter finds.

Twenty contributors edit in parallel, each owning a section. Nobody reads the 250-page filing as one connected document in the final days before routing. Inconsistencies are structural to that process, not intentional.

Without Finrep

Manual process

No systematic cross-reference validation across the full filing
Narrative drift between sections goes undetected unless the same person reads both
Quantitative mismatches require manual tracing from MD&A to Item 8 to footnote
Material metric changes discovered reactively, often by SEC staff

With Finrep

Automated workflow

Full-filing cross-reference validation in a single pass
Narrative drift flagged with both locations linked side by side
Quantitative mismatches identified automatically with both numbers and locations
Unsupported metric changes surfaced before filing

From draft to internal consistency report in four steps

Upload your draft

Drop your 10-K or 10-Q. Finrep parses the full structure and builds a cross-reference map across every metric, narrative claim, footnote reference, and policy statement.

Finrep reads the filing as a system

Every narrative claim traced to its quantitative source. MD&A growth language matched to income-statement and segment-footnote line items. ASC 606 disaggregation reconciled to MD&A revenue narrative. Cross-references validated note by note.

Review the flagged issues

Each issue categorized: narrative drift, cross-reference mismatch, or unsupported metric change. Every flag links to the specific locations in the draft.

Resolve and route

Address flags while the draft is in progress. Export the health check for the final review pass before filing.

What you get

Internal consistency report with categorized flags and source location links

Checklist BenchmarkingAsk Fina

SEC Reporting

What Filing Health Check does at a glance

Team: SEC Reporting
Filing phase: Review
Output: Internal consistency report with categorized flags and source location links
Modules: Checklist BenchmarkingAsk Fina

What changes when someone reads the entire filing as one document

Narrative drift detection

When two sections describe the same event with inconsistent language, both locations are flagged side by side. Item 7 describing "moderate growth" while the corresponding footnote describes "accelerating demand" for the same line: surfaced together with the inconsistency highlighted. Spans Item 1A, MD&A, footnotes, and policy disclosures.

Quantitative cross-reference validation

Every number appearing in more than one location is traced and reconciled. Revenue in MD&A matched to the income statement, the ASC 606 disaggregation footnote, and the segment footnote. Differences flagged with both values and their locations. Rounding tolerance configurable.

Unsupported material metric changes

When a financial metric changed materially between periods with no corresponding disclosure, the flag identifies the gap. Default threshold: 10% period-over-period change without MD&A or footnote support. Covers income statement, balance sheet, cash flow, and key footnote metrics.

Cross-reference accuracy validation

Internal cross-references ("See Note 12," "refer to Item 7") validated for accuracy. If Note 12 was renumbered to Note 14 during drafting but the MD&A reference still says Note 12, the flag identifies the stale reference and correct target.

Built for the people who own the filing's internal consistency

SEC Reporting Lead

You assemble the filing from twenty contributors. The health check reads it as a connected system and flags what no single section owner would catch.

CFO/Controller

You certify the filing. The health check confirms narrative claims reconcile to numbers and material changes have disclosure support.

FAQ

Three categories: narrative drift between sections, cross-reference mismatches (quantitative and narrative), and material metric changes without corresponding disclosure.