Define portfolio company metrics before aggregating them

The comparison begins before the total

A reporting owner needs to answer a narrower question than “What is EBITDA?”: can these specific figures answer the same portfolio question? A shared label is not enough. One pack may add back stock compensation, another may retain it, and a third may leave its adjustments unspecified. Even after definitions align, a fiscal year, a quarter and a trailing-twelve-month period do not become interchangeable.

The original worksheet below is a manual planning resource. Use it to document what a figure means and what a reviewer has accepted. It is not a financial-statement standard, covenant calculation or automatic import format for Agentic Equity. Agentic Equity is the publisher and has a commercial interest in PE operating software.

Keep the reported number and the proposed bridge

The 24-column dictionary keeps the source definition version, original reported value and exact source location alongside a named target rule. A signed bridge adjustment changes the reported value only for a stated comparison. The candidate comparable value is provisional arithmetic; the reviewer-accepted value is a different field.

Blank means unavailable or awaiting review. Zero is a supplied value that needs evidence, not a substitute for missing information. Keep the rule version and reviewer rationale when a comparison is accepted. If a definition changes later, create a new version and reconsider affected comparisons rather than silently rewriting the old source.

Company A: its reported USD 3.0m contains a stock-compensation addback

All companies and amounts in this guide are invented. Each example uses a single synthetic entity, quarterly actuals for July 1–September 30, 2026, and whole US dollars. No customer results or investment outcomes are represented.

Synthetic Company A reports base EBITDA of USD 2.4m, an integration-cost addback of USD 0.2m and a stock-compensation addback of USD 0.4m. Its reported Adjusted EBITDA is USD 3.0m. The original source and A-v1 definition stay intact.

For this worked example only, rule SYN-COMP-001 v1 retains stock compensation as an expense and permits the stated integration-cost addback. The candidate bridge is minus USD 0.4m: 3.0m − 0.4m = 2.6m. This invented rule is not a recommended universal EBITDA definition or an accepted accounting treatment.

Company B: the explicit zero bridge has a reason

Synthetic Company B reports base EBITDA of USD 2.3m and an integration-cost addback of USD 0.2m, producing reported Adjusted EBITDA of USD 2.5m. Its source explicitly says USD 0.1m of stock-compensation expense remains in the base and is not added back; the listed adjustments are complete for this invented case.

Under the same fictional rule, B’s bridge is therefore an evidenced zero. Its candidate comparable value remains USD 2.5m. A’s candidate of USD 2.6m and B’s candidate of USD 2.5m share the rule and period, but both are still pending review. The guide produces no portfolio total and makes no claim that these records establish entity independence or consolidation treatment.

Company C: an unknown adjustment blocks the comparison

Synthetic Company C reports Adjusted EBITDA of USD 4.1m and says it includes unspecified addbacks. It supplies neither an adjustment breakdown nor the bridge needed for SYN-COMP-001. That is insufficient evidence to calculate a candidate under this rule.

Preserve the reported USD 4.1m. Leave bridge_adjustment, candidate_comparable_value and reviewer_accepted_value blank; mark the comparison blocked and assign the portfolio CFO to obtain the missing breakdown. A model-generated estimate or a zero-filled cell would create a comparison that the source does not support.

Review the rule, then the figure, then the intended use

The worked CSV contains three source records: two candidate calculations and one blocked comparison. All reviewer-accepted values are blank. A reporting owner can inspect the original files, verify the arithmetic and decide whether the fictional rule is appropriate for the specific question. An arithmetic check does not accept the accounting treatment or the reporting purpose.

Before accepting a value, check the full source definition, period, units, currency and scope. Record the owner and review evidence. Before any portfolio total, separately resolve consolidated versus subsidiary entities, overlapping ownership, intercompany items and any necessary currency conversion under a documented policy. This worksheet supplies none of those decisions automatically.

Test your team on four tasks: identify A’s extra addback, explain B’s zero bridge, preserve each reported amount and refuse C’s unsupported comparison. If the reviewer cannot distinguish candidate from accepted values, simplify the dictionary before rolling it out. This guide has no measured real-user completion rate or time-saving result.

Use this alongside the current reporting workflow

Agentic Equity’s current materials workflow can retain original files, extract supported text, hold candidate metrics for review and exclude conflicting approved amounts from the dashboard. Its material facts currently carry a company, monthly reporting period, currency, excerpt and source reference. This quarterly dictionary is a separate manual worksheet; it does not extend that import schema.

The app does not automatically enforce this custom definition dictionary, apply the example’s adjustment bridge or track a metric-definition version across companies. External AI analysis requires a configured provider and review; the worksheet itself invokes no AI service. The learning-economy and acquisition-network thesis remains future scope.

Start with the source-pack guide when materials are scattered. Use the revised-board-pack workflow when a new source changes a previously reviewed figure. Use this dictionary when different definitions prevent a cross-company comparison. These are different review tasks, even when they begin with the same financial pack.