Reading a 10-Q before it goes out
The expensive errors in a filing are rarely typos. They are figures in the narrative that do not match the statements behind them, and they survive several reviews because each reader trusts the last.
A metric that moved with nothing in the MD&A to explain it is the kind of thing one regulator does not miss.
Parse the draft as claims, not text
Tables and footnotes are read as structured claims rather than flat prose, so a figure in the narrative can be matched to the line it should reconcile with.
Each figure is then checked against the filed statements and the prior periods, and the conflicts are surfaced first.
Show both numbers, not an average
When the prose says one number and the statement says another, the gap is marked and both figures are shown with their source. Nothing is smoothed over, because the disagreement is the finding.
Leave a trail
Every reading links back to the disclosure that produced it, so a reviewer confirms rather than hunts, and the report that goes out can be defended line by line.
Takeaways
- Figures are parsed as structured claims.
- Conflicts are shown with both numbers and their source.
- Every reading traces back to a filing.