Skip to content
Pinnacle Apex Partners

How a diagnostic moves from evidence to a decision

We review your records, trace the problem you can see back to its cause, and set out in writing what should happen first. Further down are two complete examples, each prepared for a fictional firm.

How the work proceeds

Each stage produces a written deliverable, and each deliverable cites the evidence behind it.

  1. Evidence reviewed

    Close calendars, reconciliations, approval trails, and the documents your team already produces are reviewed against how the work happens in practice.

    Structural Assessment Open exhibit MCR-01

    The question it answers: What is actually happening today?

  2. Constraint identified

    Visible symptoms are traced back to the ownership, sequencing, or documentation gaps behind them, with the evidence for each link.

    Constraint Map Open exhibit MCR-02

    The question it answers: Where does the work stall, and why?

  3. Decision clarified

    The findings become an ordered decision: what to do now, what to defer, and what to avoid, with the tradeoffs stated.

    Decision Brief Open exhibit MCR-03

    The question it answers: What should happen first?

The records we review

Once you accept the quote in writing, you receive a request for the information the diagnostic needs. What it asks for depends on your scope, and it covers records your team already keeps. Where it helps, we also talk with the people who do the work.

What it can include

  • Close calendars and close checklists
  • Reconciliations and the log of open items
  • Approval and sign-off trails
  • Time-entry and billing exports, with timestamps
  • The monthly report, its template, and its file history
  • New-client inquiries and sent proposals

The request also asks for your own account of the choice in front of you.

Timestamps do much of the work. They show when each step happened. A close calendar shows only when it was meant to.

We use the records you send only for your diagnostic and keep them confidential.

What the examples contain

Each example below shows the three deliverables in full, one document for each stage of the method.

The first, a month-end close review, runs to two pages per document. The Structural Assessment states its scope, compares the close as recorded with the close calendar, and notes what already works as designed. The Constraint Map counts where the days of a typical close go and shows which explanations the records do not support, such as a shortage of hands. The Decision Brief sets out the tradeoffs and what to measure before the revisit.

The second, an inquiry follow-up review, keeps each document to one page. Its Constraint Map tests whether new software would stop inquiries going quiet, and its Decision Brief sets the order for re-contacting the firm's past inquiries before any purchase.

Implementation is not included in the diagnostic. Any follow-on work is scoped separately.

How the diagnostic works

Example work

Illustrative demonstration · synthetic data

Month-end close and reporting review

A fictional 30-person accounting and advisory firm delivers its monthly management report on business day 15. The owner is considering hiring a controller to speed it up.

Synthetic inputs

  • Twelve months of close calendars
  • Reconciliation log
  • Billing approval trail
  • Time-entry timestamps
  • Report file history

Documents

Pinnacle Apex Partners MCR-01 Illustrative · synthetic

Month-end close and reporting review

Structural Assessment

Scope

This assessment compares the firm's close calendar with what its records show over 12 months. It covers time entry, client billing, the bank and receivables reconciliations, and the monthly management report. Payroll and client work were not reviewed.

Records reviewed: close calendars, the reconciliation log, the billing approval trail, time-entry timestamps, and the report's file history.

Findings

  1. F-1

    Reporting waits on billing, and billing waits on one approver.

    Evidence: E-02, E-03

  2. F-2

    Time entry has no enforced cutoff, so billing cannot close on schedule.

    Evidence: E-01

  3. F-3

    The monthly report is rebuilt by hand, so any late input delays the whole report.

    Evidence: E-04

  4. F-4

    The bank reconciliation is scheduled after billing, although it does not depend on billing.

    Evidence: E-05

What works as designed

Once a reconciliation starts, it is finished within 2 business days, and none was carried open into the next month. Approved invoices go out the same day. The owner's review of the report takes 1 day. The lost time is between the steps.

MCR-01Page 1 of 2
Pinnacle Apex Partners MCR-01 Illustrative · synthetic

The close as recorded

Days are business days after month end. Each figure is the median of the 12 months unless it is marked as the earliest or latest.

No.Task12-month recordSource
1Time entryNo cutoff on the calendar. The last entries for the month arrived on day 4, and on day 7 at the latest. Of the month's hours, 7% were entered after month end.Timestamp export
2Billing approvalTarget: day 3. Approved on day 7, and on day 10 at the latest. Invoices waited 2 days for approval, and 5 days in the 2 months the approving partner was away.Approval trail
3Bank reconciliationTarget: day 5. Finished on day 9, and on day 12 at the latest.Reconciliation log
4Receivables reconciliationTarget: day 5. Finished on day 11, and on day 14 at the latest.Reconciliation log
5Management reportTarget: day 10. Delivered on day 15, on day 11 at the earliest and day 18 at the latest. The target was not met in any of the 12 months.Close calendar

Appendix: Exception log

RefAreaObservationEvidence
E-01Time entryEntries posted after month end in 9 of 12 synthetic monthsTimestamp export
E-02BillingApprovals held with one partner, no backup approverApproval trail
E-03ReconciliationReceivables reconciliation starts after billing closesClose calendar
E-04ReportingReport template rebuilt by hand each monthReport file history
E-05ReconciliationBank reconciliation scheduled after billing, though it uses no billing dataClose calendar
E-06ReportingNo named owner for the report template; two people edit itReport file history

Limits

This assessment rests on synthetic records only. No one who does the work was interviewed, so the reasons behind each pattern are read from the records and have not been confirmed.

MCR-01Page 2 of 2
Pinnacle Apex Partners MCR-02 Illustrative · synthetic

Month-end close and reporting review

Constraint Map

Read from symptom back to cause.

  1. Symptom:

    Management report delivered on business day 15

    Evidence: Close calendar

  2. Reconciliations for bank and receivables finish on days 9 to 11

    Evidence: E-03

  3. Client billing approvals wait on a single partner

    Evidence: E-02

  4. Cause:

    No documented cutoff for time entry

    Evidence: E-01

How the links connect

Each link waits on the one below it. The report cannot be built until the reconciliations finish. The receivables reconciliation cannot start until billing closes, and billing cannot close until the last time entries arrive and one partner approves the invoices.

MCR-02Page 1 of 2
Pinnacle Apex Partners MCR-02 Illustrative · synthetic

Where the days go

The median month, in business days after month end. Links are numbered as on the map.

LinkStepMedian monthEvidence
1ReportAdjustments are posted on day 12. The report is rebuilt by hand on days 13 and 14 and delivered on day 15.E-04
2ReconciliationsWork starts on day 8, after billing closes. The bank reconciliation is finished on day 9 and the receivables reconciliation on day 11, one after the other.E-03, E-05
3Billing approvalInvoices are drafted on day 5, then wait for the one approver until day 7.E-02
4Time entryThe last entries for the month arrive on day 4. Billing cannot start before then.E-01

In the median month, 6 of the 15 business days are spent waiting: days 1 to 4 for time entry, and days 6 and 7 for approval.

The other 9 days are work, done one step after another, most of it by the bookkeeper. The months without late entries support the map: in the 3 months when all time was entered by month end, the report was delivered on day 11 or 12. Even then it missed the calendar target of day 10, because the two reconciliations still ran one after the other (E-05).

What the records do not support

A shortage of hands is not the first constraint. A controller would add capacity to days 8 to 15, when the reconciliations, the report, and the owner's review are done. Days 1 to 7 would not change, because 6 of those 7 days are spent waiting for time entry and approval.

New reporting software would shorten the rebuild on days 13 and 14. But the report template has no named owner (E-06), and a new tool would start with the same gap.

Limits

The map follows the one path the records show most clearly. A delay that leaves no trace in these records would not appear on it.

MCR-02Page 2 of 2
Pinnacle Apex Partners MCR-03 Illustrative · synthetic

Month-end close and reporting review

Decision Brief

Decision under consideration

Hire a controller to bring the management report forward from business day 15.

Basis: MCR-01, MCR-02

Do now:
Set a time-entry cutoff and name a backup billing approver.
Refs: E-01, E-02
Do now:
Move the bank reconciliation ahead of billing on the close calendar.
Refs: F-4
Defer:
The controller hire, until two closes run under the new cutoff.
Refs: F-1
Avoid:
New reporting software before ownership of each step is settled.
Refs: E-04

Tradeoffs

  • The cutoff asks everyone who records time to change a habit. Expect some late entries in the first close under it.
  • A backup approver needs a second partner willing to approve client invoices. The partner agreement may not allow it yet.
  • Moving the bank reconciliation adds work to the bookkeeper's first days of the close, which are quiet today.
  • Deferring the hire means the close runs without added help for at least two more closes.
  • Holding off on new software means the report is still rebuilt by hand, 2 days each month, until the template has an owner (E-06).
MCR-03Page 1 of 2
Pinnacle Apex Partners MCR-03 Illustrative · synthetic

What to measure before the revisit

Current figures are 12-month medians from MCR-01.

  • The day the report is delivered: day 15 now, against a calendar target of day 10.
  • The share of the month's hours entered after month end: 7% now.
  • How long invoices wait for approval: 2 business days now.
  • The day the bank reconciliation is finished: day 9 now, against a calendar target of day 5.

If the report still arrives after day 10 once both Do now actions are in place, the remaining delay sits in the reconciliation and report work. That is the point to reconsider the controller hire, with two closes of cleaner records to size the role.

Open questions

  • Can billing approval be delegated under the current partner agreement?
  • Who owns the report template after the change?
  • Will the cutoff apply to partners' own time entries?

Revisit: After two month-end closes under the new cutoff.

MCR-03Page 2 of 2

About this demonstration (month-end close and reporting review)

This demonstration was prepared for a fictional firm using synthetic data. It is not a client engagement and does not report results for any real firm.

What this demonstrates

How findings are traced from a visible symptom to a documented cause, and how they become a decision in a set order.

What it does not establish

Any result for a real firm. A real recommendation would need actual close calendars, approval logs, and conversations with the people who do the work.

Inquiry follow-up review

A fictional 14-person accounting and advisory firm received 72 new-client inquiries in 12 months, and 31 of them went quiet with no decision either way. The owner is considering buying software to track inquiries and proposals.

Synthetic inputs

  • Twelve months of web-form inquiries
  • Front-desk phone log
  • Partners' inquiry emails
  • Proposal and engagement letter file
  • New-client list

Documents

Pinnacle Apex Partners IFR-01 Illustrative · synthetic

Inquiry follow-up review

Structural Assessment

Scope

This assessment follows each inquiry over 12 months through the intake records (web form, phone log, partners' emails), the proposal file and the new-client list. Marketing and work for existing clients were not reviewed.

Quiet means no decision recorded and no contact either way for 20 business days or more.

Findings

  1. F-5

    Once an inquiry reaches a partner, no step says who follows it up, or when.

    Evidence: E-07, E-08

  2. F-6

    With no list of open inquiries, follow-up rests on each partner's habits.

    Evidence: E-07, E-09

  3. F-7

    Follow-up waits until a partner has time, so it stalls in busy season.

    Evidence: E-10

What works as designed

Every web and phone inquiry reaches a partner the same day.

Exception log

RefAreaObservationEvidence
E-07OwnershipNo record names who follows up, or when, and no list shows open inquiriesIntake records
E-08Follow-upNo follow-up recorded on 29 of 31 quiet inquiries, including 11 of 13 unanswered proposalsIntake records, proposal file
E-09Follow-upProposals unanswered after 5 business days: one partner followed up 4 of 4, the other two 3 of 18Proposal file, partner email
E-10Busy seasonMonths 1 to 4: 19 of 32 went quiet; Months 5 to 12: 12 of 40Intake records
E-11Contact detailsOnly the web form records how the person asked to be contacted (30 of 72)Web form
IFR-01Page 1 of 1
Pinnacle Apex Partners IFR-02 Illustrative · synthetic

Inquiry follow-up review

Constraint Map

Read from symptom back to cause.

  1. Symptom:

    Of 72 inquiries, 31 went quiet with no decision recorded

    Evidence: Intake records, proposal file

  2. No follow-up is recorded on 29 of the 31

    Evidence: E-08

  3. Follow-up stalls in busy season

    Evidence: E-10

  4. Follow-up is left to each partner's time and habits

    Evidence: E-09

  5. Cause:

    No named owner or follow-up step once an inquiry reaches a partner

    Evidence: E-07

How the links connect

Each link explains the one above it. Inquiries go quiet without follow-up. Follow-up stalls in busy season because partners fit it around client work. It is left to them because no one owns it.

How the inquiries arrived

Rows are channels, not links on the map.

No.Channel12-month recordSource
1Web formReceived 30; 13 went quiet. All arrive in one shared inbox.Web form
2PhoneReceived 26; 11 went quiet. Of these, 4 have no recorded callback.Phone log
3Email to a partnerReceived 16; 7 went quiet. Each stays in that partner's inbox.Partner email

Inquiries went quiet at about the same rate on every channel.

What the records do not support

New software is not the first fix. It would put every inquiry in one place, but where an inquiry was recorded made no difference, and a shared list would not name anyone to follow up (E-07).

Limits

Follow-up made by phone and never logged would not show here.

IFR-02Page 1 of 1
Pinnacle Apex Partners IFR-03 Illustrative · synthetic

Inquiry follow-up review

Decision Brief

Decision under consideration

Buy software to track inquiries and proposals, so fewer slip through.

Basis: IFR-01, IFR-02

Do now:
Name one follow-up owner, working from one list of open inquiries with set follow-up days.
Refs: F-5, F-6
Do now:
Have that person re-contact the people behind the 31 quiet inquiries, one at a time: first the 13 with a proposal and no reply, then the 18 who went quiet before a proposal, each group most recent first. Use only the contact route each record shows.
Refs: E-08, E-11
Defer:
The software purchase, until the list has run for 3 months and is too much to keep by hand.
Refs: F-5
Avoid:
A single bulk message to all 31.
Refs: E-11

Tradeoffs

  • Partners hand over follow-up, including the one who already follows up every unanswered proposal after 5 business days (E-09).
  • Re-contacting one at a time is slower, and some from Month 1 may have found another firm.

What to measure before the revisit

Current figures come from IFR-01.

  • Open inquiries with a named owner and a next follow-up day: 0 of 31 now.
  • Proposals unanswered after 5 business days that get a follow-up: 7 of 22 now.

Open questions

  • Who should own follow-up: the office manager or a partner?
  • Will partners add inquiries from their own email to the list?

Revisit: After 3 months under one follow-up owner.

IFR-03Page 1 of 1

About this demonstration (inquiry follow-up review)

This demonstration was prepared for a fictional firm using synthetic data. It is not a client engagement and does not report results for any real firm.

What this demonstrates

How a problem that looks like a missing system is traced to a gap in ownership, and how re-contacting a firm's own past inquiries is given an owner and an order before any purchase.

What it does not establish

Any result for a real firm, including whether any past inquiry would reply. A real recommendation would need actual inquiry records, proposal files, and conversations with the people who handle inquiries.

Relevant experience

Experience from Brandon J. Jones's prior employment and contract roles.

  • Audit, Deloitte

    Began in audit, reviewing how firms record, reconcile, and document their financial reporting.

  • Specialized tax credit work

    Documentation-heavy review of eligibility, records, and sequencing.

  • Real-estate accounting and financial operations

    Reporting, reconciliations, and controller-level workflow.

Prior professional role. Not a Pinnacle engagement.

About the founder

Put your own decision through the same method

You receive a written quote before any work begins.

Request a diagnostic