workflow-deal-quality-checklist

# Deal Document Pre-Delivery Quality Checklist ## What this skill covers A terminal quality gate for institutional financial deliverables. Covers four domains: (1) numerical integrity, (2) formatting compliance, (3) documentation and attribution completeness, and (4) editorial and structural review. The checklist produces an explicit pass/fail verdict; any failed item blocks delivery until resolved. ## Inputs - The near-final document (markdown, PDF draft, or structured data) - The list of MCP tools invoked to produce financial figures - The formatting conventions applied (`workflow-deal-formatting-conventions`) - The confidentiality classification and distribution log (`workflow-confidentiality-disclaimers`) - The citation log (`workflow-deal-citation-standards`) ## Workflow ### Step 1 — Numerical Integrity Review For each financial table or figure in the document: - [ ] Every number traces to a tool output (`corp-finance-mcp [tool_name]`) or an explicitly stated user assumption — no LLM-generated financial figures - [ ] Base / bull / bear scenarios provided for all valuations - [ ] Sensitivity analysis on at least 2 key variables (growth rate, discount rate, or exit multiple) - [ ] Financial tables internally consistent — revenue matches across all sections (income statement, valuation, comps) - [ ] Sources and Uses balance (total sources = total uses, where applicable) - [ ] Balance sheet balances in every forecast period (A = L + E), where applicable ### Step 2 — Formatting Compliance Review Verify against `workflow-deal-formatting-conventions`: - [ ] Consistent number formatting throughout (commas, one decimal, currency suffix) - [ ] All negatives in parentheses — no minus signs anywhere in the document - [ ] All multiples use "x" notation with one decimal (e.g., 8.5x) - [ ] All dates in DD-Mon-YYYY format - [ ] Tables: no vertical gridlines; units in column header only; alternating row shading - [ ] Source footnote present below every table and chart ### Step 3 — Documentation and Attribution Review Verify against `workflow-deal-citation-standards` and `workflow-confidentiality-disclaimers`: - [ ] Confidentiality notice present on every page - [ ] Cover-page confidentiality block present (for Tier 2 and Tier 3 documents) - [ ] Legal disclaimer on final page (for Tier 3 documents) - [ ] Date stamps on all market data citations - [ ] Source footnotes below every table: SEC filing page, FMP date, tool name - [ ] All corp-finance-mcp tool outputs cited with tool name and key assumptions ### Step 4 — Editorial and Structural Review - [ ] Spell check and financial terminology review complete - [ ] Consistent use of IB/PE standard terms throughout (no mixed terminology) - [ ] No first-person language in client-facing sections - [ ] Executive summary or investment summary accurately reflects detailed findings - [ ] All internal cross-references within the document are correct - [ ] Page numbers accurate; table of contents entries match section headings - [ ] No redaction failures — no confidential counterparty names visible in a blind teaser ### Step 5 — Version Control - [ ] Document version stamped on the cover (v1.0, vDraft, vFinal) - [ ] File name follows the firm's naming convention ([Client]_[DocumentType]_[Date]_[Version]) - [ ] Prior versions archived (not overwritten) - [ ] Change log present for documents with 2+ material revisions ### Step 6 — Verdict | All checks pass | Document cleared for distribution. Record date and version in the distribution log. | |-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Numerical failure | Block delivery. Route back to the analyst for correction and re-run of affected tool. | | Formatting failure | Block delivery. Apply `workflow-deal-formatting-conventions` corrections and re-check. | | Attribution failure | Block delivery. Add missing citations per `workflow-deal-citation-standards`. | | Editorial failure | Block delivery. Fix the specific items and re-run Step 4. | ## Output format 1. **QC checklist table** — one row per check with pass/fail status and page reference for each failure 2. **Verdict block** — PASS or FAIL with list of blocking items 3. **Distribution clearance record** — if PASS: document name, version, date cleared, cleared-by ## Quality gates - [ ] All four review steps completed in order — no skip-ahead to verdict - [ ] Every failed check includes a specific page/section reference - [ ] Verdict explicitly stated as PASS or FAIL — not "mostly ready" - [ ] Distribution clearance record produced only on PASS ## Related skills - `workflow-confidentiality-disclaimers` — produces confidentiality marks verified in Step 3 - `workflow-deal-formatting-conventions` — defines the formatting rules checked in Step 2 - `workflow-deal-citation-standards` — defines citation rules checked in Step 3