Finance has a language for capital, margin, risk, and forecast confidence. Technology doesn't — yet it now drives a growing share of your cost base and your risk. We give you the missing piece: an independent, board-ready Technology Asset Report.
You already govern capital, risk, margin, and forecast accuracy with discipline. The one asset you can't get a reliable operating report on is technology — and it's now among the largest, most variable lines you carry. AI and cloud infrastructure have become material, hard to forecast, and impossible to defend from a vendor invoice; you're expected to govern them as financial exposure, but the numbers come from the team that spends them.
Every other material number on your statements has an evidence discipline behind it — audited, traceable, defensible. Technology doesn't. We read what the systems actually emit (code, commits, ownership, incidents, roadmap history, dependencies, AI and cloud spend) and turn it into a Technology Asset Report: a CFO-grade read on technology spend, risk, capacity, and roadmap confidence. We're independent of the engineering team, and we don't sell the rebuild — so the findings aren't shaped by work we hope to win.
The same questions you already ask of every other part of the business — asked of the technology asset, and answered from evidence.
We don't present technical concerns. We price their business consequence.
AI is 30–50% of OpEx, but you see the model invoice — one of four cost layers. Get the full TCO and ROI.
AI Cost & ROI Read →Most capitalization is built from timesheet estimates auditors challenge. Build the basis from commit evidence.
Software Capitalization →Everyone knows it exists; almost nobody books a number. We quantify it in dollars and time.
Quantifying tech debt →What are you actually buying? An independent read of a target's code before the money moves.
Technical due diligence →When critical systems depend on one person, that's a valuation and continuity risk — mapped by commit.
Code audit →Custom IP vs. open source and boilerplate, and what it would cost to replicate — in person-years.
Evaluate a codebase →CFOs are being asked to approve AI spend, cloud commitments, modernization plans, and roadmaps without a reliable way to test whether the underlying system can support the business case. The Technology Asset Report closes that gap: what's strong, what's fragile, where spend is leaking, where risk is accumulating, and whether the roadmap is financially credible.
A CFO-grade, independent read of the technology asset in financial terms: an executive technology P&L, where engineering capacity went versus plan, a balance sheet of technology assets and liabilities, roadmap confidence scored by evidence, AI/cloud unit economics, a financialized risk register, and recommended actions — read-only and independent of the team.
It's independent and evidence-based — the same relationship you have with an external auditor versus internal management reporting. It verifies the numbers; it doesn't replace the CTO.
No. AI and cloud cost is the wedge — material, variable, hard to forecast — but the category is technology financial governance: architecture, delivery confidence, technical debt, key-person and vendor risk, security and end-of-life exposure, and roadmap credibility.
Three weeks, fixed price, read-only — no engineering meetings required to begin. The output is a board-ready report, with findings traced to source records.
An independent, board-ready read of what your technology and AI actually cost, what risk they carry, and whether the roadmap is credible. Three weeks, fixed price, read-only.
Get a Read →