Governed autonomy
The number finance can defend.
Sales commits one figure, finance models another, and the board date doesn't move. Insighter is where finance settles the difference: both numbers side by side with the source of each, your rule for which one wins, and the reason on record. It then makes the corrections in your systems, within limits you set.
One run: triggered on a schedule, it reads 41 accounts, opens a ticket for the six that slipped, emails each owner, updates three records, stops before the refund because it is over the spend cap, and later restates March churn from 3.6 to 4.1 percent.
Q3 commit, before sign-off
running
- triggerNightly, before close. Nobody started this.
It acted in three systems and stopped at the fourth, because the refund was over the ceiling somebody set. The last line is the part nothing else does: it went back and told you a figure it had already given you was no longer true.
The week before sign-off
You already know how this goes
Tuesday, the export. You pull the CRM, you pull the model, and you rebuild the bridge tab from scratch because last month's does not fit this month's deals.
Wednesday, the thread. Sales says three of those are committed. You have seen two of them slip twice. Nobody is wrong, and nobody can prove it either way.
Thursday, the meeting. Somebody senior picks a number. It is probably the right one. Nothing about how it was picked is written anywhere.
Next quarter, the same argument. The person who knew the rule has moved teams, so it is re-litigated from the beginning, four days before the board pack.
Why it matters
Finance owns the number it controls least
Past a certain size the forecast stops coming from one place. Sales has a view in the CRM, finance has adjustments in a model, billing disagrees with both, and leadership wants one figure by Thursday. What stays manual is not producing the forecast. It is the negotiation just before sign-off: when judgement may override the system, what evidence justifies it, who approves it, and what happens the next time the same argument appears. That logic lives in side-calculations and threads, and leaves when the person does.
What you actually do
Four moves, and only the last one repeats
Declare the two views of one line, say what counts as noise, write down the rule you already follow, and then certify the exceptions that survive it. Only the last one recurs, and it takes minutes rather than the meeting it replaces.
- You declare
Name the two views of one number
The CRM commit and the finance model, as governed definitions rather than two ad-hoc queries. A certified figure has to trace to something somebody agreed on.
Your time: Once, per line
- You set the bar
Say what counts as noise
Under two percent, or under fifty thousand, or both. Everything inside that is agreement and you never hear about it. Everything outside is a decision somebody owes.
Your time: Once, per line
- You write the rule
Say which side usually wins
The thing that currently lives in a side-calculation and a thread. When sales reads higher by more than ten percent, take the model. The rule proposes on the card; it never decides.
Your time: Five minutes, and it outlives you
- You certify
Only what the rule could not settle
Both numbers, the query behind each, what the rule suggests and what you concluded last time. You pick one, say why, and the reason becomes the precedent for the next one.
Your time: Minutes, not the meeting
How it works
Three things, and the middle one is the product
It shows both numbers, with the query behind each
The CRM view and the finance view of one line, side by side, each traced to a governed definition, its version, and how fresh the table under it is.
Your rule proposes, a person certifies
Which source usually wins, and when. The rule suggests; nobody is preselected. The reason you chose is kept with the number, and becomes the precedent the next disagreement starts from.
It says when a certified number stops being true
The figure is frozen with its query. If the data moves underneath afterwards, it says so and says what changed: a late arrival, a backfill, or a changed definition.
The third has its own page, walked through on one number: Was it still true?
Who this is for
And, as usefully, who it is not
A good fit
At least three systems feed a forecast that is judgement driven rather than pure arithmetic, two functions publish their own version of the same growth number, and there is a recurring board or lender date somebody has to certify against. Usually a scaling B2B company with FP&A as its own function, often within a year of a new finance leader arriving.
Not a good fit
A company small enough that one leader settles a disagreement in a conversation has nothing here to install. A forecast that is stage-weighted arithmetic out of a single system has nothing to adjudicate. And if you want a chart of the disagreement rather than a decision about it, a dashboard is cheaper and we are not one.
Where it fits
It does not replace your CRM or your planning tool
Sales keeps forecasting in the CRM. Finance keeps modelling where it models. Insighter sits in the gap between them, at the point where the two have to become one number, and it reads both rather than asking either to move. If you are being sold a migration, that is a different product.
How to start
We are working with a small number of finance teams
Hands-on, one forecast cycle at a time, building around what actually helps rather than what demos well. A pilot is one line certified end to end: we sit with you to write down the rule you already follow, connect the two sources, and run it through a real close. If it does not save you the meeting, it has not worked, and we would rather find that out with you than sell you a seat.
For the security review
The two questions the review asks, answered in the architecture
A certified number is only worth the controls under it. Send this section to whoever says no.
One place decides, and it only ever narrows
Every action an agent takes in your systems resolves through a single function. Your permission, the workspace policy, the automation ceiling, the source mode, the tool switch, the spend cap, the vendor class: the strictest wins, and none of them can widen another. An approval granted yesterday is re-checked against today's settings before it runs. Bolt governance on afterwards and you get a policy page. Build it as the only path and you get a guarantee.
A certified number says when it stops being true
Certification is not the end of it. A deal slips, a record is corrected, a source backfills, and the figure you defended last week quietly changes. Every certified figure is frozen with the query behind it and hashed, so the product says the number moved and says what moved it: a late arrival, a backfill, or a changed definition. Ask any reporting tool what it told you in March and whether that is still right.
Pick the follow-up nobody gets to
The demo is a worked example you can click through. Nothing to install, and no account needed.