I am here to show you a model I am building and ask for your honest reaction to whether the numbers hold up.
CFO-level vetting is the highest bar I can put my calculations against. Your feedback will directly shape how I quantify and present Execution Diligence findings.
Who I Am
Alexandra Velez, Reason Reveal
I conduct Execution Diligence for PE-backed companies. When execution costs more time, people, or money than expected and the underlying causes remain difficult to explain, I find out why and attach a number to it.
My work follows evidence across operations, technology, product, engineering, people, and organizational design. The output is a financially defensible finding: a causal picture of what keeps recurring and what it is costing annually.
Domain
PE-backed companies
Focus
Execution Diligence
Output
Financially attributed findings
End Goal
EBITDA-credible numbers
What Problems I Solve
Something expensive keeps recurring. No one has a satisfying explanation.
The situations I work on share a specific pattern: material, recurring, cross-functional, and difficult to attribute. The economic consequence is real and not yet quantified with confidence.
Spend Without Output
Headcount, technology, or vendor spend increases without the expected improvement in throughput or performance.
↓The response is to add more.
Recurring Problems
Reorganizations, new tools, process changes, or leadership interventions occur. The underlying problem returns.
↓Each function develops its own explanation.
Execution Below Plan
Important initiatives consistently require more time, coordination, or management intervention than anticipated.
↓Pressure rises. Explanations multiply.
Conflicting Explanations
Finance, Operations, Product, and Engineering each describe the same problem differently.
↓No one can attach a number to it.
Unknown Economic Impact
Leadership knows something is costing them. The recurring amount remains unquantified.
What I find
The systemic causes behind the pattern, the recurring annual cost, and which conditions have a credible path to EBITDA improvement. Material findings are reviewed with Finance to confirm the numbers hold.
Credibility Snapshot
Why the numbers deserve scrutiny.
Engagement type
Fixed-fee Execution Diligence diagnostic for PE-backed companies with $250M to $2B in revenue.
Evidence standard
Forensic: interviews, artifacts, direct observation, and financial cross-referencing. Findings are observation-based, not survey-based.
Output standard
Every finding carries a recurring annual cost estimate reviewable by Finance, alongside the qualitative picture.
Where I am right now
Building the financial attribution model. Testing the math against people who work with these numbers for a living.
What We Will Cover and Why
30-Minute Agenda
5 min
Introductions
Brief context on each of us. How you work with numbers. What I am building.
5 min
The Scenario
I will walk through one specific situation: a PE-backed company where recurring execution problems are costing an estimated $X million annually. I will show you how I arrived at the number.
The math I want you to pressure-test.
20 min
Discussion
Your honest reaction to the calculations. Where the logic holds. What a CFO would need to see before accepting a number like this. What would make it stronger or more defensible.
The part I came for.
What I Am Asking For
Honest feedback from someone who works with these numbers.
My goal is to find out whether the calculations I am building can pass CFO scrutiny. Where they cannot, I want to know exactly where they break and why.
01Does the cost attribution logic hold under real operating conditions?
02What would a CFO need to see before accepting a recurring impact estimate like this?
03Where does this kind of analysis typically break down?
04What would make this more defensible to a finance team or a PE sponsor?
The standard I am building toward
Every finding I produce should carry a quantifiable number a CFO can independently vet, stress-test, and stand behind.
How This Conversation Is Structured
A working session
Your expertise shapes the model directly.
A conversation about the math
Focused on the calculations, not a proposal.
A request for CFO-level feedback
The kind of honest reaction only someone in your role can give.
Specific input on a specific approach
Financial attribution methodology, not general networking.
I will come prepared. Please come skeptical.
The most useful thing you can bring is a genuine willingness to tell me where the numbers do not hold. Polite agreement will not help me build something surviving a real diligence process.
Thank you for making time for this conversation.
What is an execution problem costing you?
Rework, attrition, scope changes and execution friction can compound across teams, projects and contracts. See what the financial impact could look like at your scale.