Reframing the Company Profile

Traditional company profiles are static snapshots: a few ratios, a paragraph of boilerplate, and maybe a chart or two. The NeXtBRL company profile is something different. It is a living analytical asset built on reliable financial data, machine learning to derive patterns and risk signals, and Large Language Models to translate those signals into context that a CFO, controller, auditor, or risk officer can act on.

The goal is simple but ambitious: save time and resources by automating the heavy lift of risk analysis and financial profiling, while standardizing how teams interpret that information so everyone is working from the same analytical playbook.

1. Grounded in reliable financial data

Everything starts with the data layer. The company profile is anchored in structured financial information such as XBRL tagged filings, historical stock data, analyst targets, and segment disclosures. Instead of manually hunting through 10 Ks, earnings decks, and market data terminals, the system pulls, normalizes, and reconciles these inputs into a single, consistent view.

• Deterministic inputs: Revenue, net income, assets, liabilities, cash flows, EPS, and key ratios are all sourced from verifiable filings and market feeds, not inferred or approximated.
• Time series awareness: Multi year trends are preserved, allowing the profile to compare year over year and quarter over quarter movements instead of treating each period in isolation.
• Cross entity comparability: By aligning data to standard taxonomies, the profile can compare a company to its peers without getting lost in label differences or reporting quirks.

This is what makes the rest of the system trustworthy: every insight has a clear path back to a tagged, auditable data point.

2. Machine learning as the analytical engine

Once the data is anchored, machine learning models do the pattern recognition work that would normally take analysts hours or days. Instead of replacing judgment, they compress the time it takes to get from raw data to a shortlist of questions worth asking.

• Clustering and peer grouping: K means and related techniques group companies by financial behavior and stock performance, not just by SIC code or sector label. This reveals which peers truly move alike and which are outliers.
• Distribution and anomaly analysis: Changes in revenue, margins, cash flows, and stock returns are analyzed as distributions, highlighting where a company is behaving normally versus where it is statistically unusual.
• Signal extraction: Models surface patterns such as persistent underperformance versus analyst targets, unusual volume spikes, or sudden shifts in balance sheet structure that may warrant deeper review.

The result is a standardized analytical backbone: every company profile is processed through the same set of models, so teams are not reinventing the wheel every time they look at a new name.

3. LLMs as the narrative and context layer

The final layer is where the analysis becomes usable. Large Language Models sit on top of the structured and modeled data, turning numbers into narrative: what changed, why it might matter, and what a finance or risk professional should be thinking about next.

• Targeted summaries: Instead of generic commentary, the narrative is anchored to specific movements in revenue, net income, EPS, cash flows, and leverage, with dates and dollar amounts preserved.
• Question generation: For each section, the system proposes focused questions a CFO, auditor, or risk lead might ask, directly tied to the underlying elements that triggered them.
• Consistent framing: Because the narrative is generated from a common template of analytical objectives, different teams receive explanations in a consistent structure, reducing misinterpretation.

This is where the company profile stops being a static report and becomes a reusable briefing tool that can be dropped into board decks, audit planning, or risk reviews without rework.

Inside the Company Profile

The company profile is built as a multi-layered analytical framework. Each component contributes a distinct perspective on the company, and together they create a unified, standardized, and insight-rich understanding of financial performance, risk posture, and market behavior. The structure is flexible enough to derive unique insights automatically, yet standardized enough to be trusted and reused across finance, audit, and risk teams.

• 1. Architecture of the company profile
  Establishes the foundation for how reliable data, machine learning, and LLM-driven context work together. This ensures every analysis begins with the same governed structure, enabling consistency across teams while still adapting to each company's unique data footprint.
• 2. Core company highlights
  Consolidates essential identifiers, ratios, and market metrics into a single, standardized snapshot. This gives teams a shared factual baseline, reducing misalignment and accelerating downstream analysis.
• 3. Earnings call intelligence
  Extracts operational themes, analyst concerns, and forward-looking statements from transcripts. This adds qualitative insight to the profile, helping teams understand management's narrative and strategic direction without manual review.
• 4. Stock performance and sentiment
  Transforms raw price and volume data into interpretable sentiment signals. This reveals how the market is reacting to the company and provides a real-time behavioral layer that complements the financial statements.
• 5. Competitive stock comparison
  Places the company in context by comparing its stock behavior to peers using clustering and trend analysis. This helps teams distinguish company-specific movements from broader sector dynamics, all within a consistent comparative framework.
• 6. Financial statement summary
  Synthesizes multi-year financial data into a structured narrative of performance. This provides a reliable, repeatable way to identify trends, inflection points, and anomalies without manually reconstructing the financial story.
• 7. Competitor financial comparison
  Extends the standardized financial analysis across the peer group, enabling apples-to-apples benchmarking. This highlights where the company is aligned with peers and where it diverges, supporting strategic and risk-focused discussions.
• 8. One-time items and unusual events
  Identifies goodwill changes, impairments, acquisitions, divestitures, and other non-recurring activities. This helps teams separate structural performance from temporary distortions, improving the accuracy of trend analysis and risk assessments.
• 9. Segment and geography analysis
  Breaks down performance by business unit, region, or product line. This reveals which areas are driving growth or risk, enabling more targeted strategic decisions while maintaining a consistent segmentation framework.
• 10. Current events and news context
  Integrates external narratives by summarizing recent news and comparing sentiment to competitors. This helps teams understand how public perception aligns or conflicts with financial and operational data.
• 11. Integrated highlight reel
  Combines all prior insights into a cohesive, executive-ready view of the company. This demonstrates how standardized components can be assembled into a flexible briefing that adapts to any company without sacrificing consistency.
• 12. Application across workflows
  Shows how the company profile can be embedded into recurring processes for finance, audit, and risk teams. This reinforces the core value: a flexible yet standardized solution that scales across teams, portfolios, and reporting cycles.

Each component adds a unique analytical lens, but together they form a unified system: a company profile that automatically derives insights while remaining structured enough to be trusted, audited, and reused across the organization.

What this means for finance, audit, and risk teams

For finance teams, the company profile compresses the time from data collection to decision ready insight. Instead of manually stitching together filings, market data, and commentary, they receive a structured narrative that already highlights the key movements and questions.

• For CFOs and controllers: Faster board prep, more consistent peer benchmarking, and a clearer link between narrative and numbers.
• For financial auditors: A standardized starting point for risk assessment, planning, and scoping, with clear pointers to unusual trends and one time items.
• For risk management: A repeatable way to profile counterparties, vendors, or portfolio companies using the same analytical lens every time.

The real value is not just automation, it is alignment. When everyone is looking at the same company profile, built from the same data and methods, disagreements move from "what are the numbers" to "what should we do about them."

Frequently asked questions from leadership

As this kind of governed company profile moves into mainstream use, leadership teams tend to ask a consistent set of questions. The series and the underlying architecture are designed to answer them directly.

• Can we trust the numbers? Yes, because every figure is sourced from verifiable filings or market data, and the system is designed to show its work rather than inventing metrics.
• Will this replace our analysts? No. It removes the repetitive work of data gathering and first pass analysis so analysts can focus on interpretation, challenge, and scenario building.
• How does this help with standardization? Every company is processed through the same pipeline, using the same definitions and methods, which means teams across geographies and functions are finally speaking the same analytical language.
• What about audit and regulatory scrutiny? Because the profile is grounded in tagged data and its transformations are traceable, it can support audit trails and regulatory reviews more cleanly than ad hoc spreadsheets.

The strategic path forward

The NeXtBRL company profile is not just another report. It is a blueprint for how financial, audit, and risk teams can work from a shared, machine generated understanding of a company, built on reliable data, machine learning insights, and LLM driven context. Each analytical component contributes a distinct lens, and together they form a governed framework that replaces fragmented, manual workflows with a consistent, repeatable, and insight rich process.

For firms that want to move beyond ad hoc spreadsheets and inconsistent interpretations, this represents the next standard: a company profile that can be generated on demand, compared across entities, and trusted in the boardroom. It provides a unified analytical foundation that scales across teams, portfolios, and reporting cycles, ensuring that every stakeholder is working from the same structured truth while still benefiting from automated, adaptive insights.

Defining a New Standard of Governance

As AI moves from the laboratory to the boardroom, the primary obstacle is no longer capability, it is trust. Senior finance leaders and boards are rightly concerned about the risks of deploying autonomous systems in a regulated environment. To navigate this, advisors must move beyond technical jargon and establish a clear "Glossary of Trust".

Trust in financial AI is not a binary state; it is a measurable outcome of how data is governed, how models are anchored, and how outputs are verified.

1. Deterministic Anchoring: Eliminating the Hallucination Risk

Trust in financial AI begins with grounding. While general purpose Large Language Models are designed to predict the next likely word in a sentence based on probability, financial AI must be forced to reconcile its narrative outputs to a verified, immutable data source.

• Technical Mechanic: This process utilizes Retrieval Augmented Generation. Instead of letting a model answer from its internal training data, the system first retrieves specific, tagged data points from SEC filings or internal ledgers.
• The Core Benefit: By mathematically tying every output to a tagged XBRL element, you remove the "black box" nature of AI. If the AI claims that a company's liquidity is improving, it must provide the specific tagged data point from the Balance Sheet to prove it. This eliminates the risk of statistical hallucinations where an AI might confidently invent a financial metric that does not exist.
• Boardroom Application: For a CFO, this means every slide in a deck generated by AI has a direct "drill-down" capability to the source filing, providing the level of assurance required for regulatory sign-offs.

2. Taxonomy Alignment: Speaking the Language of the Regulator

For AI to provide meaningful cross-company comparisons, it cannot rely on subjective interpretation. It must be aligned with standard financial taxonomies such as US GAAP or IFRS.

• The Challenge of Variation: Different companies often use different labels for the same financial concept. Without taxonomy alignment, an AI might fail to recognize that "Revenue" and "Net Sales" are functionally the same for a specific analysis.
• Standardized Benchmarking: By mapping AI outputs to a formal taxonomy, firms can ensure "apples-to-apples" comparisons across an entire sector. This creates a defensible framework for boardroom reporting that stands up to regulatory scrutiny.
• Defensibility: Taxonomy alignment allows a controller to explain exactly why a certain peer group was selected and how the metrics were normalized, ensuring the data is defensible during a formal audit or a board review.

3. Agentic Traceability: Building the Digital Audit Trail

The future of finance is not a single, monolithic AI model. Instead, it is a series of specialized "Agents" working in a coordinated, governed workflow.

• Workflow Architecture: Instead of asking one model to "analyze this report," a governed system uses one agent to extract text, a second to verify it against the XBRL layer, and a third to check for compliance with internal policy.
• Audit Readiness: Each agent leaves a discrete "digital fingerprint". This allows an auditor or a controller to look back and see exactly which agent performed which task, creating a level of transparency that is impossible with a single model.
• Error Isolation: If a discrepancy is found in a report, agentic traceability allows the finance team to identify exactly where the logic failed. You can see if the error occurred during the data extraction phase or the calculation phase, making remediation significantly faster than traditional manual reviews.

Frequently Asked Questions for the Boardroom

Implementing AI at the board level requires answering critical questions regarding risk and oversight. Below are common concerns addressed by the governed intelligence framework.

• How do we know the AI is not making up its own numbers? This is solved through deterministic anchoring. Unlike creative AI tools, financial AI is restricted to referencing specific, audited data points. If the source data is not in the XBRL layer or the verified ledger, the AI is programmed to state it does not have the information rather than guessing.
• Can these AI-generated reports survive a formal audit? Yes, because of agentic traceability. Because every step of the data processing journey is logged as a distinct event, auditors can verify the "chain of custody" for every data point. This turns the AI from a mysterious engine into a documented process.
• Does this technology replace our existing compliance and risk teams? No. Instead, it shifts their role from manual data gathering to high-level oversight. The AI handles the "heavy lifting" of data normalization and extraction, while the human professionals focus on the judgment calls and strategic implications revealed by the data.
• How is our sensitive internal data protected from public models? Governed systems use private cloud environments where data is never used to train public models. The AI agents operate within a secure perimeter, ensuring that your proprietary financial data remains confidential and compliant with data privacy regulations.

The Strategic Path Forward

The firms that will dominate the advisory market in the coming years are those that stop treating AI as a "productivity tool" and start treating it as a "governance pillar". By establishing these standards early, you provide your clients with more than just data, you provide the confidence to make high-stakes decisions in an increasingly complex environment.

The Concept of a "Data Shadow"

Large-scale corporate transformations, such as a major ERP implementation or a global cloud migration, do not happen in a vacuum. These projects cast a "data shadow" in financial filings and public records long before an official announcement or RFP is released. For advisory firms, the ability to detect these shadows represents a significant competitive advantage in client acquisition.

By utilizing machine learning (ML) models, such as Gradient Boosting Machines or Random Forests, we can identify specific patterns of expenditure and disclosure that serve as "early warning" signals for major capital expenditure (CapEx) events.

Feature Engineering for Predictive Modeling

The efficacy of these ML models depends on "Feature Engineering," the process of turning raw financial data into predictive indicators. For CapEx detection, we focus on several key features:

• Asset Aging Velocity: By calculating the ratio of "Accumulated Depreciation" to "Gross Property, Plant, and Equipment" across the XBRL layer, we can identify when a company's core infrastructure is reaching the end of its useful life.
• Consulting Variance Spikes: We monitor for quarter-over-quarter "Consulting and Professional Fee" spikes that occur *without* a corresponding increase in revenue or M&A activity. This often signals a heavy planning phase for a transformation project.
• Amortization Burn Down: Significant decreases in the "Amortization of Intangible Assets" often precede a new "Capitalized Software" cycle.

These indicators are then combined with "unstructured" features, such as the volume of job postings for specific technical roles (e.g., "SAP S/4HANA Architect"). The ML model assigns weights to these features, creating a "Propensity Score" for the client.

The Value of Pre-RFP Intelligence

When an advisory firm approaches a client with a Propensity Score backed by hard data, the conversation shifts from a "cold call" to a strategic consultation. You are identifying a need the client may still be in the process of defining. This data-driven approach allows firms to build an early pipeline of high-value engagements before the competition even knows the opportunity exists.

The Convergence of Logic and Execution

For decades, the roles of "Accountant" and "Software Engineer" were silos. One managed the rules of financial logic (GAAP and IFRS), while the other managed the rules of technical execution (Python and SQL). However, as financial data becomes more voluminous and complex, the siloed approach is failing. We are witnessing the rise of the "Engineer-Accountant," a professional capable of translating complex accounting principles directly into auditable code.

This shift is critical because most "generic" AI tools are built by engineers who lack a deep understanding of financial statement relationships. Without accounting logic as a primary constraint, an AI might correctly identify a number but completely misinterpret its context within the statement of cash flows.

Why Accounting Domain Expertise is Mandatory

To understand why domain expertise is required, consider the task of auditing or benchmarking capitalized software costs. A generalist data scientist might prompt an AI to "find software costs," but an Engineer-Accountant understands the specific requirements of ASC 350-40 (Intangibles — Goodwill and Other — Internal-Use Software).

ASC 350-40 is the definitive FASB guidance that dictates when a company must stop expensing costs and start capitalizing them. The "logic" is nuanced: costs in the "Preliminary Project Stage" are expensed, while costs in the "Application Development Stage" are capitalized. A generic AI lacks the judgment to distinguish between these phases in a complex footnote. It might see the word "development" and assume capitalization, missing the fact that the project is still in a research or "preliminary" phase.

The Engineer-Accountant builds "Feature Extractors" that look for the specific criteria required for capitalization under ASC 350-40, such as evidence that management has authorized the project and that it is probable the software will be completed. By embedding these GAAP-specific rules into the code, we ensure that the technical architecture respects concepts like materiality and periodicity. When code is written with this level of domain awareness, the resulting insights are inherently more reliable and defensible in a boardroom setting.

Building the Modern Advisory Pod

Mid-tier firms have a unique opportunity to build "Advisory Pods" led by these hybrid professionals. These pods do not just use software; they build "stateful" workflows where every AI output is cross-referenced against a verified financial taxonomy. In this new era, code is not just a tool; it is the digital expression of professional judgment.

Why XBRL Matters to Finance Leaders

For accounting and finance leaders, this debate is a reminder that the real burden is not the act of reporting itself, but the way the underlying data is structured and reused. If the SEC ultimately shifts the cadence of 10-Qs from quarterly to semi-annual, the market will receive the same XBRL-tagged filings but on a longer clock, compressing the number of formal "data checkpoints" each year and widening the information gap between institutions that can continuously mine those tagged datasets and retail investors who still rely on periodic narrative summaries and headlines for insight.

In this context, there are a handful of organizations (e.g., XBRL International, XBRL US) that play critical roles and serve as the standards and advocacy bodies driving consistent taxonomies, data quality rules, and implementation guidance, helping ensure that any shift in SEC reporting cadence does not come at the expense of comparability and decision-useful data for investors, regulators, and preparers. XBRL US provides a number of foundational trainings to better understand XBRL, we would recommend XBRL Fundamentals to start.

When a company "tags" its financial statements in XBRL (or iXBRL), they are not just labeling numbers and text; they are creating a deterministic relationship between a number, a period of time, a unit of measure, and a specific GAAP concept. This creates a "hidden structure" that allows for a level of automated analysis that was previously impossible.

Turning Filings into Machine-Readable Intelligence

The true power of this "Invisible Asset" is that it fundamentally changes what is possible with disclosure analysis, not just how fast we can recreate yesterday's spreadsheets. The journey from static PDF exhibits, to XBRL, to Inline XBRL (iXBRL), and now to xBRL-JSON has steadily moved financial reporting from human-only documents to structures that modern engineers can stream, query, and embed directly into products, with xBRL-JSON in particular giving developers a lightweight, JSON-native way to work with tagged facts instead of wrestling with XML; for a hands-on illustration, see the XBRL International xBRL-JSON tutorial.

And XBRL is no longer confined to 10-K and 10-Q: the SEC now requires Inline XBRL across 10-K, 10-Q, 20-F, 40-F, key 8-K items, and proxy and information statements, while regulators like FERC mandate XBRL for Forms 1, 1-F, 2, 2-A, 3-Q (electric and gas), 6, 6-Q, 60, and 714, and XBRL US has even published demonstration taxonomies for state and local government ACFR/CAFR reporting, expanding the machine-readable universe of filings far beyond the traditional earnings cycle.

Finding Hidden Risk and Alpha in Tagged Data

As the volume of financial data continues to grow, firms that rely on manual data extraction will become cost prohibitive and prone to error. By treating XBRL as a primary data asset rather than a compliance task, firms can build proprietary benchmarking engines that reveal "outlier" risks in footnote disclosures that are invisible to the naked eye. Critics often point to the proliferation of custom tags as a weakness of XBRL, but SEC research shows that the relative use of custom GAAP tags has been trending down over time as filers improve taxonomy alignment.

In parallel, advances in NLP and machine learning now allow practitioners to algorithmically interpret and cluster those custom extensions, rather than forcing every label back into a rigid, predefined bucket. From a risk perspective, these custom tags should be embraced, not ignored: they frequently encode the very nuances where a company's economic reality diverges from the norm, becoming the needle in a haystack signal for internal risk management and internal audit teams, and externally for audit firms and analysts seeking to understand where a filer's policies, estimates, or exposures truly differ from its peers.

The Decay of Historical Information

The traditional model of financial advisory is inherently reactive. Firms typically wait for a formal filing, such as a 10-K or 10-Q, and then perform variance analysis to explain what happened in the previous quarter. However, in modern capital markets, the strategic value of historical data decays the moment it is published. To remain relevant, advisory firms must move up the "information curve" toward predictive foresight.

This transition requires a shift from viewing financial filings as static documents to viewing them as a stream of evolving signals. By combining structured data quality with contextual AI, we can identify "active signals" that suggest a company's future narrative before that narrative is officially formalized in a regulatory filing.

The Mechanics of MD&A Foresight

MD&A Foresight is built on the premise that management's future disclosures are preceded by measurable "leakage" in both quantitative data and qualitative rhetoric. We identify these shifts through a process of cross-modal correlation, matching high-precision XBRL data against linguistic markers in unstructured text.

The quantitative side of this process focuses on "Indicator Variances" within the XBRL layer. For instance, we monitor the relationship between "Deferred Revenue" and "Cost of Goods Sold" at a granular level. If the machine-readable ledger shows a statistically significant divergence in these tags that is not yet explained by a reported event, it suggests a shift in the revenue recognition cycle or a hidden change in contract terms that will likely require a narrative adjustment in the next MD&A section.

The qualitative side utilizes Natural Language Processing (NLP) to perform "Vector Distance Analysis" on executive communication. By converting earnings call transcripts, 8-K press releases, and even industry-specific job postings into multi-dimensional vectors, we can measure how far management's current language has drifted from its historical baseline.

For example, if the word "headwinds" begins to appear in high-proximity to "logistics" and "margin compression" in transcripts, but the previous MD&A focused exclusively on "expansion," the model detects a "Linguistic Pivot." When this pivot is cross-referenced with the hard data shifts in the XBRL layer, it allows us to model the likely text of the next MD&A. We are essentially predicting the "Narrative Delta" before it is written.

Strategic Implications for Professional Services

For professional services firms, this capability changes the nature of the engagement. Instead of explaining a client's past, advisors can provide a "Forward-Looking Risk Map." This allows for proactive intervention, helping clients manage disclosure risks and valuation narratives months before the next filing cycle begins. Moving from a historian to a strategic architect is the next evolution of the accounting profession.

The Physics of Financial Trust

In the world of Large Language Models (LLMs), the engine operates on probability. When an AI generates a sentence, it is essentially predicting the most likely next word based on statistical patterns. While this is effective for creative writing, it is fundamentally incompatible with accounting, which is "deterministic." A balance sheet must balance to the penny, and an XBRL tag represents a specific, audited fact that cannot be "guessed."

Recent research indicates that a staggering 95% of enterprise AI pilots fail because they ignore this fundamental conflict. If you feed a probabilistic engine unstructured data, the result is often "hallucination" where the AI confidently presents a number that simply does not exist in the source filing. This failure risks both client trust and firm liability.

The Governance Gap in Enterprise AI

The "95% failure rate" of AI in finance is rarely due to a lack of processing power; it is almost always a failure of governance. In a regulated financial environment, an insight is only as valuable as its traceability. The governance gap exists because most standard LLM implementations operate as a "Black Box;" they provide an answer but cannot prove the "Data Lineage" of that answer.

For a CPA or a CFO, an AI summary that says "Revenue increased by 12% due to regional expansion" is a liability unless the system can instantly point to the exact page, paragraph, and audited XBRL tag that supports that claim. Without this "referential integrity," the output cannot be used in a working paper or a board deck.

Furthermore, the governance gap is widened by the lack of "Temporal Consistency." Probabilistic models can provide different answers to the same question if asked twice. In accounting, the truth is static. A governed AI must be restricted by a "Logic Layer" that ensures the output remains consistent and reconcilable to the audited source, regardless of the prompt's phrasing.

The Solution: The XBRL Anchor

To bridge this gap and build an AI that a CFO can trust, you must anchor the probabilistic LLM to a deterministic data layer. XBRL provides this "Ground Truth." Because XBRL is a machine-readable digital ledger audited alongside the financial statements, it acts as the invisible structure that prevents AI from drifting into fiction.

By utilizing the XBRL taxonomy as a map, we can guide AI to the exact "Intangible Assets" or "Inventory" tag. This ensures that the AI's summary is built upon verified facts rather than best guesses, creating the structural integrity necessary to safely leverage the speed of AI.

Why it Matters for Mid-Tier Firms

Growth-minded firms that solve this conflict first will capture market share by offering "Governed Intelligence." It is the difference between giving a client a rough summary and giving them an auditable roadmap. When you offer a financial analytics platform that truly reflects this process, you position your firm to build durable relationships regardless of what industry giants offer (see our thoughts on competing with larger firms).

Agility and Expertise Drive Competitive Growth

Growth-minded consulting and advisory firms are increasingly focused on competing with (and winning business from) the largest and most established industry players. While those firms may possess global infrastructure and mature processes, their scale often results in inflexible workflows and slow adoption of new technology. This opens a clear opportunity for firms with the vision and agility to invest in custom solutions built specifically for their business model and clients.

Adopting analytics and due diligence platforms designed to match your operations allows your team to deliver insights faster, with accuracy and relevance that large generic systems cannot match. The ability to adapt rapidly to each engagement, integrate efficiently with your firm’s data, and respond directly to evolving client needs sends a powerful message to the market.

The Real Cost of Rigid, One-Size-Fits-All Platforms

Many popular due diligence tools promise sophisticated analytics and reporting, but their generic approach means your professionals often spend excess time moving data between systems. Copying and pasting information from different sources, reconciling datasets in Excel, and reformatting reports becomes routine. This not only slows project delivery, but also exposes your work to avoidable errors and dilutes your capacity to deliver unique, value-driven advice.

Custom analytics platforms solve these challenges. By connecting with your preferred data sources, automating manual collection, and reflecting your firm’s actual workflow, these solutions let your team focus on analysis and impactful client service, rather than on data management headaches. The result is better quality control, faster turnaround, and more time dedicated to delivering actionable recommendations.

Accelerate Growth by Delivering What Others Cannot

The most competitive consulting firms leverage technology as a core differentiator. Rather than settling for surface-level insights, they equip their professionals to explore financial data deeply and present clear, tailored recommendations. With the right custom tools in place, you support advanced due diligence and help clients achieve clarity faster than the competition.

Clients choose firms not just for capability, but for readiness to adapt, deliver, and innovate on their behalf. When you offer a financial analytics platform that truly reflects your process and delivers insights others cannot, you position your firm to take market share and build durable relationships, regardless of what the industry giants claim to offer.

With the SEC's recent rule requiring the creation of XBRL auditor tags (including the name of the firm, and its location) the importance of XBRL data quality has never been more apparent. By leveraging publicly available rule sets (such as those created by the XBRL US Center for Data Quality) as well as proprietary analysis (such as those created by NeXtBRL), it is now possible to more fully understand the quality of the financial audits being performed by overworked 22 year olds at CPA firms across the US.

Consistent or structural issues within a publicly traded company's XBRL filings may point to deeper issues within the quality of the data being audited and reported. Consequently, the importance of the XBRL data set continues to increase. By zooming out from a single data set, and understanding XBRL data quality trends on a firm by firm, or office by office level, investors and regulators alike can start to more fully understand which firms, and even specific offices, are overlooking issues within the reporting practices.

Audit teams and Financial Reporting Managers alike will need to spend more time more fully understanding what is being reported to regulators, and the broader investment community.

Interested in learning more? Check out our sources below:
https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2021/34-93701.pdf
https://xbrl.us/news/xbrlus-dqc-3-new-data-quality-rules/

Why XBRL? It's a question we get asked a lot. The answer is simple: no other publicly available data set has the same level of definition, context, and timeliness as the eXtensible Business Reporting Language. The standard is global, and growing.

Here at NeXtBRL we are leveraging data relating to the SEC’s XBRL mandate, which covers publicly traded companies that are listed on exchanges located in the US. This includes filers reporting results using GAAP, which leverage one taxonomy, and filers reporting results using IFRS, which uses a separate taxonomy. This data set is robust and contains a whole lot of insights not available anywhere else.

Interpreting paper financial statements from public companies is surely an art. Leveraging the frameworks consistency and standardization can help turn this process into a science.