Investment teams
Compare disclosed project assumptions, outstanding evidence and conditions before an internal review.
IBBC CAPITAL · PROJECT EVIDENCE & RISK REVIEW
Know what changed.
Review what matters.
For investment and project-finance teams managing changing assumptions, missing evidence and repeated approval rounds.
LOCAL PROTOTYPE · Synthetic data. Commercial pilot planned; no customer-document intake.
Designed for a repeated decision workflow
Project-finance teams
Track changes to cost assumptions, financial scenarios and work needed to prepare a reviewable dossier.
Review leads
See who prepared and reviewed each version, why a condition remains open and which report is current.
Target users are a product hypothesis, not existing clients. This workflow supports professional judgement; it does not certify assets, approve financing or replace legal and investment review.
Six connected capabilities. One decision trail.
Product design below spans implemented fixture features and planned extensions; the status table states the current boundary.
Project & evidence
Project ID, units, dates, source owner, version and an explicit unverified or missing status.
Output: Source register and evidence gaps.Assumptions & scenarios
Disclose financial assumptions and model version; separate calculation outputs from AI suggestions.
Output: Reproducible scenario snapshot.Change-impact engine
Map a changed input to downstream calculations, metrics, review conditions and reports.
Output: Affected-item list with a review requirement.Risks & accountable tasks
Keep legal, revenue and funding evidence gaps open until the responsible reviewer records sufficient evidence.
Output: Risk register, owners and follow-up work.Separate preparation & review
Bind approval to the exact revision. Stale requests, self-review and duplicate commands must not create another report.
Output: Decision history and review reasons.Decision pack & updates
Preserve old snapshots, display assumptions and limits, then flag future source changes for another review.
Output: Versioned report with source references.Try a change in a fictional port project
Browser illustration with three precomputed fixtures, not a live account or approval. No data is saved. Values come from the disclosed deterministic Python model; the separate local backend tests persistence and review controls.
Read assumptions and calculation limits
USD millions; 10 years; first-year revenue 12; variable operating cost 50% of revenue; fixed cost 2.4; revenue growth and fixed-cost inflation 3%; annual maintenance CAPEX 0.4; working capital 10% of revenue; tax assumption 20%; discount rate 12%; straight-line initial CAPEX depreciation. No debt, terminal value, loss carryforward or final working-capital release. Tax is an illustrative assumption, not a legal conclusion.
What exists today — and what comes next
Implemented · local fixture
CAPEX-only change graph, deterministic finance, separate fixture actor review, preserved report snapshots and database reopen tests. Actor selection simulates roles; it is not real authentication.
Next · controlled pilot
Real organisational identity and permissions, protected file intake, broader source dependencies and customer-specific workflow acceptance. No commercial availability or launch date is asserted.
Later · conditional integrations
Source-cited AI extraction and approved partner adapters. Credit scoring and token issuance/custody require separate data, validation, permissions and operational readiness.
Prove value before expanding
A proposed pilot starts with one team, one disclosed project and an agreed baseline. Measure review effort, missed changes, rework and source traceability. Set acceptance thresholds with the buyer before testing; no time-saving percentage or funding outcome is promised.
Commercial hypothesis: a scoped paid pilot, then an organisation subscription with active-project capacity if repeated usage is demonstrated. Pricing, service terms and support remain to be agreed.