NAV review and price exceptions
Reads prices from two sources, the NAV, last period's prices. Produces approved NAV, exceptions. Code works out every figure, the Judgement Engine answers the narrow questions, and whatever stays uncertain goes to a person.
Narrow questions, each with a check behind it.
Whether a price move or stale price is explained
Vetoed by code: tolerances, second source. Code can't prove the answer right, but it can prove it wrong: an amount out of range, an impossible date, a name not on the document. Many settle; the rest go to a person.
| Reads | Prices from two sources, the NAV, last period's prices |
| Produces | Approved NAV, exceptions |
| Who signs | A person on your team, with every figure traced to its document and every call on record |
| Process | Close and accounting |
| Industry | Wealth, asset management and fund administration |
Every line, decided where it's safest.
An example run. Each stage lights up as a line is decided there; pick a stage to see its lines.
| Ref | Item | Value | Decided by |
|---|---|---|---|
| EQ-0044 | Price move +2.1%Within the day's market move | Code · within tolerance | |
| BOND-0012 | Price unchanged 5 daysIlliquid bond, second source agrees · 0.93 | Engine · checked | |
| FUND-0031 | NAV −4%Market fell 4% · 0.95 | Engine · checked | |
| EQ-0230 | Price +18%Takeover news? Second source differs | To a person | |
| FX | EUR/CHF rateMatches the fixing | Code · matched | |
|
Settled 4
To a person 1
Settled wrong 0
| |||
Your volumes in. Your hours out.
In our tests, between 24% and 42% of items still went to a person after tuning. Set your own share; a pilot measures it on your data.
Start from what's closest.
Close and accounting in other work
Balance sheet account reconciliation and certification
What explains each balance; whether support is enough
FinanceManual journal entry review
Whether an entry is supported, authorised, unusual
FinanceAccruals review
Whether an accrual is needed and its size is supported
More for asset management
What buyers ask
What happens when Sumarity isn't sure?
Nothing settles below the cutoff, or when the check disagrees. The item goes to a person in the inbox with what the engine saw, its best answer and the runner-up. The person's ruling is kept and tunes the next run.
How are its judgements checked?
Code can't prove the answer right, but it can prove it wrong: an amount out of range, an impossible date, a name not on the document. Many settle; the rest go to a person.
Can we change it to fit how we work?
Yes. Start from this workflow and describe your differences in plain words. The design assistant revises it, the validator checks it, your expert reviews it on the canvas, and your admin publishes it.
Does it read our files as they are?
Yes: spreadsheets and CSV in any layout, PDFs, bank formats and e-mail attachments. Sumarity suggests how each column maps, proves the mapping on a sample and remembers it once a person confirms it.
Where does our data go?
Sumarity runs in Zurich. Your data, backups and logs are stored in Switzerland.
How does it get better?
Your team's rulings become an answer key. Better questions and cutoffs are proposed, tested on data they haven't seen, and published only when your admin approves. It improves itself, with permission.
Start from this workflow. Run it on your data.
A pilot runs alongside your own process for a few weeks, at our cost, and ends in a line-by-line comparison.