LearnGrokNothing here is financial advice, and none of it replaces your own checks.
Use these prompts to turn a financial model, comparable-company analysis and investment assumptions into a committee paper that can be traced back to its evidence. They are for corporate finance and investment teams preparing internal valuation approval materials. Nothing here is financial advice, and none of it replaces your own checks.
Start with the evidence register, not the memo. A polished narrative built on a wrong valuation date or inconsistent net debt definition is harder to fix than a blank page.
Key point
Build the source trail first
Every valuation figure in the memo should lead back to a named document, tab or section, and as-of date.
1. Assemble a controlled input set
Collect the materials in one review folder before you paste anything:
- The current financial model output, including valuation summary, discounted cash flow schedules, value bridge and sensitivity tables.
- The comparable-company file, including screening criteria, selected companies, trading date, metrics, source dates and any adjustments.
- The investment case, management plan and material diligence findings.
- Any existing valuation paper, committee template or prior approval conditions.
Record the file name and version in the evidence register. If the model and comparables use different valuation dates, do not quietly align them in prose. The committee needs to see that difference and decide whether updated work is needed.
Use Build the valuation evidence register when inputs are incomplete or come from several people. Its output separates confirmed facts from conflicts and missing fields. Send the Conflicting and Missing items to the named owner before drafting the main memo.
Watch out
Do not turn gaps into assumptions
A reasonable-looking discount rate, multiple or debt figure is still unsupported if it is not in the supplied material.
2. Set out the valuation basis
Use Document valuation methodology and judgements once you have an evidence register. This is the prompt to use when a committee member will ask why trading comparables were chosen, why a discounted cash flow result carries weight, or why a precedent transaction method was not used.
Keep three things separate:
- Model output: a number produced by a specified schedule using stated inputs.
- Management assumption: an operating or business-plan input provided by management.
- Deal team judgement: a selection, adjustment or interpretation that needs evidence and may need committee confirmation.
A method can be useful without being decisive. The memo should say what it corroborates, what it does not capture, and whether the supplied information permits a reliable comparison. If the selected peers differ in geography, growth profile, capital structure or accounting treatment, identify the difference rather than claiming full comparability.
Where the model or analysis is version-dependent, check the relevant product handling and current limitations in the xAI documentation overview. Do not assume that a result generated in one working session will be available or reproducible in another.
3. Draft the paper for the meeting
Use Draft the committee memo when the valuation owner has reviewed the facts and methodology. Paste the completed evidence register as well as the narrative inputs. The evidence register gives the draft a source trail and prevents it from treating a provisional assumption as settled fact.
The memo should make the decision request narrow. State what the committee is being asked to consider, the valuation scope, the valuation date and the unresolved points. Do not let a high-level transaction description hide whether the paper addresses enterprise value, equity value, a minority interest, a control position, or another defined scope.
For each approval condition, name:
- The evidence or decision still needed.
- Why it could affect value or the approval basis.
- The responsible owner.
- The timing, if supplied.
This lets the committee distinguish items that require a decision now from items that require more work before circulation.
Note
A committee memo is not the model
Use the memo to explain the value bridge, method selection and decision points. Keep detailed schedules in an appendix or linked working papers.
4. Make sensitivities comparable
Use Create sensitivities and approval points when model outputs need translating into a committee view. Only show cases actually produced by the model or explicitly supplied in the assumptions. A hand-created downside case may look helpful, but it can change the approval basis without an owner having reviewed it.
Check that each sensitivity uses the same currency, units, valuation date and enterprise-to-equity bridge as the base case. If it does not, label the comparison as limited. Do not combine sensitivity outputs from different model versions.
The approval-points table is useful when the paper has several diligence issues. It forces each issue into one of four states: ready, committee decision required, owner confirmation required, or not ready. That is more useful than a generic risk list.
5. Check the output before circulation
Use Red-team the completed memo after the valuation owner has reviewed the draft. Paste the underlying outputs with it. The model can identify missing references and inconsistencies, but it cannot validate a figure that was not included in the pasted evidence.
Check
The memo is ready for owner review when
Every valuation figure has a source, the value bridge is traceable, and each unresolved item has an owner or a committee decision point.
Use this table to decide what to fix.
| If you see this | Treat it as | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| A value changes between sections | Blocking issue | Check the model version, source date and value bridge, then correct or disclose the conflict. |
| A multiple has no peer set or trading date | Unsupported judgement | Add the comparable-company source detail or remove the claim. |
| Enterprise value and equity value do not reconcile | Blocking issue | Recheck net debt, other adjustments and share count definitions. |
| A sensitivity has no stated driver | Unclear analysis | Name the input changed, base case, scenario value and source. |
| The draft says a matter is approved | Scope error | Reframe it as a committee consideration or decision required. |
Read the final memo alongside the model's valuation summary. Check headings, dates, currencies, units and labels one by one. Then ask the valuation owner to confirm that the paper reflects the intended case, not merely that the prose reads well.
When the prompts do not work
If the draft is generic, paste less narrative and more source detail: the value bridge, peer-selection notes, sensitivity tables and exact approval question. If it invents a figure, stop using that draft and return to the evidence register. If outputs conflict, do not ask for a smoother explanation. Ask the source owner which document is authoritative, record the answer, and rerun the relevant prompt. Nothing here is financial advice, and the qualified internal reviewers and committee remain responsible for the decision.
