Financial statement review before partner review.
THE REVIEW BOTTLENECK
The final review still lives in calculators, PDF search, and draft version chaos.
01
Late-stage math errors
Footing, rounding, sign, and subtotal checks still get repeated by hand.
02
Disclosure inconsistency
Values can agree in statements but drift in notes or support schedules.
03
Version rework
New drafts force reviewers to decide what must be checked again.
A controlled review layer for financial statements.
Invector FS Review helps teams review the procedures they already perform: mathematical accuracy, internal consistency, prior-year comparison, version changes, source evidence, and export packaging.
| Upload | Check | Review Export | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current draft, prior report, schedules | AI and rules surface exceptions | Evidence, rationale, reviewer actions | Annotated PDF and issue register |
Start with redacted files and review controls.
The first buyer moment should feel secure: upload limited materials, choose procedures, and understand what will be logged before any live data enters the workflow.
- Redacted evaluation path
Prospects can assess output quality before sharing live client or company data.
- Current and prior-year sources reviewers already use: draft statements, prior
The workspace expects the same materials reports, and lead schedules.
- Review controls first coordinates, and export approvals are visible at
No-training defaults, decision logs, evidence setup.
Coverage, exceptions, and source pages in one workspace.
Managers can quickly see what cleared, what remains open, and which finding needs judgment before partner review.
Practical automation for review procedures teams already perform.
01 Mathematical accuracy
Footing, cross-footing, subtotals, totals, rounding tolerance, and sign convention checks.
04 Version comparison
Surface changed draft areas so reviewers do not restart from scratch.
02 Internal consistency
Match recurring amounts and related headings across statements, tables, and notes.
05 Evidence viewer
Show source location, calculation trail, confidence, and reviewer context.
03 Prior-year comparison
Compare current comparative columns against prior-year audited reports.
06 Export package
Prepare annotated PDFs, issue registers, review summaries, and decision logs.
Every exception needs evidence.
Each finding shows source pages, row coordinates, recalculation logic, confidence, and reviewer actions. The system flags the risk; the professional makes the decision.
Calculation trail
The reviewer can see exactly how the exception was recomputed.
Source-linked evidence
PDF coordinates and support files are attached to the finding.
Do not re-review the entire draft.
Changed areas reopen automatically. Unchanged procedures stay cleared with their evidence, so managers can focus on what actually moved.
Changed areas
Statements, notes, and schedules that changed after manager review are reopened.
Carried-forward checks
Unaffected review work remains cleared with its source evidence intact.
Recheck queue
Managers see where new work is required before partner review.
Turn exceptions into follow-up.
The export package gives managers and client-facing teams the pieces they need to act: annotated PDF, issue register, review summary, evidence index, and decision log.
- Annotated financial statement PDF
- Issue register by severity and owner
- Review summary by check type
- Decision log for reviewer actions
Confidential review work needs visible boundaries.
Redacted-first evaluation
Assess quality without live client data.
Decision log
Actions are captured for follow-up and export.
No training by default
Documents are not used for training without explicit permission.
Security review available
Buyers can review data handling.
Reviewer authority
The system flags; the professional decides.
Export approval
Packages can require manager approval.
Start with teams where finalreview rework is already expensive.
Primary
Mid-market audit firms
Assurance teams reviewing privatecompany, nonprofit, and employee benefit plan statements.
Lead qualification should separate volume, role, current workflow, security concerns, and willingness to run a redacted sample review.
See a sample review before sharing live data.
Request sample review