What should happen when a PE board pack is revised?

Start with the company, period and changed source

A revised board pack can arrive after an operating meeting or after an analyst has accepted a figure. The first task is to establish whether it corrects the same business period and entity. A September pack received in October is still September reporting. An October forecast is a different record, even if its filename looks like the previous pack.

Use a stable company identifier and a logical source identifier for the reporting pack. Give the actual files distinct references and revision labels. Record when the correction arrived and who supplied it. Keep each original under your firm’s existing retention and access policy; this planning workflow does not set a legal retention schedule.

Ask the source owner what changed and why. A new filename or a more recent upload timestamp does not establish that every figure is correct. Until the affected evidence has been reviewed, label the issue as requiring review and identify the previously accepted amount explicitly.

• Confirm the entity, reporting period, currency and metric definition.
• Keep references to the original and corrected versions.
• Locate the changed passage, page or worksheet cell.
• Assign a figure reviewer and a separate decision owner.
• Record what remains unresolved before distributing the next dashboard.

A corrected cash figure after an operating review

Atlas Components / SYN-001 is an invented company, used in our source-pack examples. These two short text files stand in for a board-pack extract; they are not actual board materials or customer results. Both describe September 2026 month-end cash in USD. The original reports 4,800,000. The revision reports 4,200,000 and explains that a 600,000 supplier payment was omitted from the original cash schedule.

In the synthetic scenario, an internal reviewer had previously accepted 4,800,000 from version v1. A proposed equipment programme of 500,000 was then queued for an operating decision. The correction changes the evidence behind that discussion. It does not, by itself, decide whether the programme is affordable or authorize a payment. Forecasts, restrictions on cash and the company’s approval process still need their own review.

Open both downloadable sources and find the line beginning “Month-end cash”. Their company, period, currency and basis agree; the amount changes by 600,000. This establishes the toy example’s stated correction. It does not establish that a real company’s explanation is sufficient: a real reviewer must obtain the appropriate supporting evidence.

Keep the corrected source inspectable

The revised extract includes the same metric basis, a correction explanation and an unchanged headcount of 80. Review the affected cash evidence without assuming that the whole pack is newly approved. If the correction changes the definition or period as well as the amount, pause the comparison and resolve those differences first.

Keep reported values and accepted values separate. The revised file reports 4,200,000 at receipt; the reviewer’s accepted value remains unresolved until the review is completed. Leave the reviewed-value cell blank during that interval. Zero is an amount, not a substitute for an unanswered question.

Record the revision and review as separate events

The blank CSV is a proposed manual revision/review log. Use it alongside your source manifest. It is not an automatic Agentic Equity import file, a certified audit trail or a document-retention system. In a private copy, use authorized source references and the people responsible for review; the public example uses role labels.

The log has a stable revision ID and separate event IDs, so a receipt event and a later review event can be linked without rewriting the earlier row. It records both source references and versions, the source location, company and period, metric basis, currency/unit, old and revised reported amounts, previous accepted amount, newly reviewed amount, rationale, review owner and completion time.

Keep the affected decision ID, decision owner, decision-review state and next action in the same handoff. Completing the metric review should not close the decision-review item. If several decisions relied on the figure, add a clearly linked row for each affected decision rather than claiming the worksheet finds dependencies automatically.

A completed figure review can still leave a decision open

The example log has two events for SYN-REV-001. On October 2, the company finance lead supplies v2; the figure review is pending and the reviewed-value field is blank. On October 3, the portfolio finance reviewer records the checked value of 4,200,000 and marks that figure review completed. The earlier accepted value of 4,800,000 remains visible in both rows.

Both events point to SYN-DEC-001, the proposed equipment programme. The operating partner owns the decision review, which remains pending even in the second row. Its next action is to obtain an updated cash forecast and reconsider the proposal before the firm’s normal approval process. No contract, investment, acquisition or payment has been executed in this example.

A reviewer can reconstruct which source supplied the figure, which amount was previously relied on, why it changed and which next action still needs an owner. That is the acceptance test for this resource. It is not a measured time saving or evidence of better investment performance.

How the current Agentic Equity workspace handles this

The private workspace accepts a corrected file as a separate material upload. It starts pending. Assign the same company and business period, retain the original references and review proposed metrics against their source excerpts. A workspace owner can approve the reported metrics. The record’s internal version tracks edits and protects against a stale save; it is not the board pack’s business revision label.

A separate corrected upload does not automatically revoke the older material’s approval, link the two files as a revision chain or reopen decisions that used the old figure. Keep that handoff in the revision log and assign the review deliberately. Automatic supersession and decision-impact mapping are future workflow possibilities, not advertised working functions here.

If two approved materials contain different amounts for the same company, period, metric and currency, the current dashboard excludes that conflicting metric and returns a conflict for review. A pending corrected material does not automatically remove an older approved amount. Treat that interval as an explicit review gap rather than assuming the displayed amount has incorporated the correction.

For a retained original whose figure should no longer contribute, an authorized operator or owner can save its proposed metrics for review again; saving proposals clears that material’s approval. Record its previous accepted value and source reference in the private log before doing so. Review the corrected source and let the owner decide its approval. This manual step preserves the original file but does not create a complete accepted-value history inside the application.

External AI analysis and third-party document systems need configuration and authorized access. The downloadable kit requires neither. Agentic Equity’s broader learning-economy thesis remains future scope; this guide covers a bounded human review process.

Test the handoff before expanding the reporting pilot

Run the source pair and log through one rehearsal. Ask someone who did not prepare them to identify the old source, corrected source, previous accepted amount, reviewed amount and outstanding decision. If those answers require the author’s memory, add the missing reference or explanation.

Then choose a small authorized example from your firm and agree who owns each step. A setup call can help define that reporting pilot. The aim is an inspectable review handoff; completed bookings, error reduction, time saved and search performance remain unmeasured.

• Both source files remain retrievable within the agreed access scope.
• The correction belongs to the same entity and period, or the mismatch is explicitly unresolved.
• The prior accepted amount is visible without being presented as current approval.
• The reviewer records evidence, rationale and completion time.
• The affected decision has its own owner, status and next action.
• The dashboard’s pending/conflict behavior is understood before the next report is distributed.