Watch loan covenants and reporting duties against monthly figures
For: Group treasurer or financial controller of a company with several debt facilities
The pain today
Covenant definitions differ between facilities: what counts as debt, which adjustments are allowed, when certificates are due. The tracking spreadsheet was built once, and an amendment or an acquisition quietly changes the calculation.
The ask
“I connected our monthly figures and attached the facility agreements, amendments and waiver letters. For each covenant and reporting duty, work out the calculation exactly as that agreement defines it, re-check it every month or when an agreement changes, and warn me early when headroom shrinks or a deadline nears.”
Plain words, as you would say it to a colleague. Edit it to fit your case before you send it.
What you attach or connect
- Facility agreements, amendments and waiver letters
- Monthly management accounts from the ledger
- Forecast or budget by month
- Compliance certificates already delivered
The unit of work
One worker task per one covenant or reporting duty in one facility.
Why a swarm fits
Each covenant is defined in its own agreement and computed from a few ledger lines. When figures or an amendment change, only the covenants that depend on them are recomputed and re-checked.
Not for
One facility with a simple leverage test: the existing spreadsheet, checked quarterly, is enough.
The decision tree
6 typed decisions, each with an action for every answer
At fixed moments in a run, the engine puts one narrow question to a decision model. The decision model never writes text: it answers yes or no with a probability, picks from listed options, or gives a score, about a small slice of the material. The engine then does exactly what this tree says, which is what makes the run auditable. The thresholds are the template's design values, not measured results.
Planner, while planning
Scope checkYes or no, with a probability
Before work starts on a unit
Does this month's ledger movement or this amendment touch a line or a definition used in any covenant formula?
Sees only: The changed ledger lines or amended clauses and the formula component list
Why: Only covenants that depend on what changed are recomputed.
- Yes: 0.40 or higherthenAccept
- Unsure: 0.15 up to 0.40thenAccept
- No: below 0.15thenSkip this unit
After workers, the judge checks
Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability
After a worker answers
Does the quoted definition permit this ledger line to be counted the way the mapping does, for example as an allowed adjustment to earnings?
Sees only: One ledger line's description, its mapping and the quoted definition
Why: One wrongly allowed adjustment can hide a breach.
- Yes: 0.90 or higherthenAccept
- Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.90thenMark unresolved
- No: below 0.50thenReject and retry
Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability
After a worker answers
Does the ratio recomputed for the last certified period equal the figure in the delivered compliance certificate?
Sees only: The recomputed ratio and the certificate's figure
Why: New periods are trusted only after the formula reproduces a signed one.
- Yes: 0.90 or higherthenAccept
- Unsure: 0.60 up to 0.90thenReject and retry
- No: below 0.60thenReject and retry
Reconciler, while merging
Conflict checkYes or no, with a probability
While reconciling
Does the amendment change a definition or test level that the current formula still uses in its old form?
Sees only: The amendment's operative wording and the formula's quoted definitions
Why: Amendments are what quietly break a covenant spreadsheet.
- Yes: 0.60 or higherthenReject and retry
- Unsure: 0.30 up to 0.60thenMark unresolved
- No: below 0.30thenAccept
Run control, between rounds
Another round?Yes or no, with a probability
Between rounds
Is headroom on this covenant wide and steady across recent periods, so that a recheck before the next test date would not change its warning status?
Sees only: Headroom by period for one covenant
Why: Attention goes to the covenants that are tight.
- Yes: 0.80 or higherthenStop
- Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.80thenContinue
- No: below 0.50thenContinue
Accountable person, before anything is settled
Person decidesYes or no, with a probability
Before anything is reported as settled
Is forecast headroom shrinking towards the test level, or does the calculation rest on an unconfirmed adjustment?
Sees only: The headroom trend and the list of unconfirmed adjustments
Why: The treasurer owns the certificate and every lender conversation.
Accountable: The treasurer and finance director own the certificate, any waiver request and every conversation with lenders.
- Yes: 0.30 or higherthenAsk a person
- Unsure: 0.10 up to 0.30thenAsk a person
- No: below 0.10thenAccept
The fleet: who does what
Model tiers by role, not brands: you choose the models. Strong reasoning models plan and reconcile, small fast models do the wide work, and the judge is a decision model from a different family, so it does not share the workers' blind spots.
Planner
A strong reasoning model turns each covenant definition into a formula with its named adjustments, test dates and cure rights.
Decisions here:1. Scope check
Workers
Small fast workers from an open-weight family map ledger lines to one definition's components and recheck on change.
Designed for 6 to 150 agents, one worker task per one covenant or reporting duty in one facility. Each worker receives only its own unit.
Judge, from a different model family
A decision model from a different family checks that each mapping and adjustment is permitted by the quoted definition.
Decisions here:2. Evidence check3. Evidence check
Reconciler
A strong reasoning model reports headroom per facility and traces any movement to the figure or clause that caused it.
Decisions here:4. Conflict check5. Another round?
Accountable person
The treasurer and finance director own the certificate, any waiver request and every conversation with lenders.
Decisions here:6. Person decides
Checked before anything is accepted
- Every formula component quotes the definition it implements
- Ratios are computed in code, never by a language model
- Results are tied to the last delivered compliance certificate before new periods are trusted
- Adjustments that need lender or auditor confirmation are marked unconfirmed
What comes back
- Covenant calculation per facility with clause and ledger sources
- Headroom trend and forecast breaches by test date
- Reporting and certificate deadlines ahead
- Definitions changed by an amendment, old and new side by side
What to measure
- Differences against calculations later signed off by finance
- Lead time between first warning and test date
- Treasury hours per reporting cycle
Names of measures only. No result is claimed for this template.
Templates open in the workspace chat with the ask filled in. Nothing runs until you send it.
Get early accessSign in to useMore in Finance and audit
Reconcile intercompany agreements with the transfer pricing policy
For: Group tax manager or group controller preparing transfer pricing documentation
Markups, payment terms and service scopes are set in the transfer pricing policy, restated in intercompany agreements and changed in addenda.
Break a group audit plan into entity, process and assertion tests
For: Head of internal audit or group audit senior manager planning the annual audit
A group audit spans many entities, each with its own processes, ledgers and prior findings.
Extract lease accounting inputs where the wording needs judgement
For: Group accountant or lease accounting lead maintaining the lease register
Lease term, extension and termination options, indexation and incentives sit in contracts and amendments in several languages.