# Cerenovus: full text of the marketing pages > Cerenovus Inc. is an AI software company in San Francisco, founded in 2026 and backed by Y Combinator (Summer 2026). Cerenovus is an "MRI for value creation": it reads a company's approved e-mail, chat, systems, and files through read-only access, rebuilds how work actually moves between people, teams, and tools, and ranks value creation opportunities, each sized from named inputs and linked to its source. This file is the plain text of the public pages at https://www.cerenovus.ai, generated from the same source as the pages. The shorter index is at https://www.cerenovus.ai/llms.txt. Name: Cerenovus Inc. (cerenovus.ai), usually written "Cerenovus AI", is unrelated to CERENOVUS, the neurovascular medical-device business in Irvine, California, owned by Johnson & Johnson. Figures on the site: $2B+ transaction value reviewed in client work; $50M+ value creation opportunities identified in client analyses (identified, not realized); 10,000+ analysis threads run at the same time; and a one-week target for a review that takes months when done one step at a time. Examples on the homepage come from a demonstration on the public Enron email corpus (2000–2001). Certification status: SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, and GDPR are in progress. Contact: founders@cerenovus.ai. Security review: security@cerenovus.ai. Careers: careers@cerenovus.ai. Demo booking: https://www.cerenovus.ai/book-demo/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/cerenovus-ai/ X: https://x.com/Cerenovusai --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/ # Cerenovus MRI for Business AI driven value creation for private equity, consulting, and advisory teams. [Who we serve] ## Analysis for deal teams, operating partners, and consultants Choose your team to see what Cerenovus reads and what your team receives. Private equity ### Operating Partners & Portfolio Operations ### Portfolio Company Leadership ### Deal Teams & Investment Committees Consulting & advisory ### Operational Consulting & Performance Improvement ### Corporate Development & Integration Teams ### Transaction Advisory & Due Diligence [Value creation 2.0] ## Cerenovus reads how the company actually works and finds where it can run better. Your team still chooses what to fix and leads the work. Cerenovus finds each opportunity in the company's data and ranks it by what it is worth. ### Company-wide scope Email, chat, documents, and system data are too large for a team to read in full. Cerenovus reads all of it and rebuilds how the work really happens. ### Parallel investigation Cerenovus runs related questions across finance, sales, and operations at the same time. Your team gets more analysis before the decision date. ### Reviewable findings Each finding links to the email, record, or file behind it. Your team can open the source and check the math. ### How work gets done Today: Interviews and samples show only part of the daily work. With Cerenovus: Find repeat work, extra sign-offs, and delays in every process. ### Automation Today: Teams guess which tasks are worth automating. With Cerenovus: Find each manual step that software or AI could take over, sized in hours and cost. ### Teams and incentives Today: Misaligned incentives and overlapping mandates surface only when they escalate. With Cerenovus: See where incentives pull teams apart, where mandates overlap, where work is done twice, and where a process depends on one person. ### Decisions Today: Analyses and warnings stay in inboxes. With Cerenovus: See which decisions go ahead without the evidence the company already has. ### Priorities Today: Teams rank ideas using rough estimates. With Cerenovus: Know what each fix is worth before you start. ### Tracking results Today: Progress is checked in slide decks that go out of date. With Cerenovus: The team can rerun the same questions even as their business evolves. [Company-wide analysis] ## Cerenovus targets one week for work that would take months in sequence. A review team works through questions one after another. Cerenovus works through all of them at once. Cerenovus reads email, chat, documents, and system exports, and matches the same people and vendors across them. [What Cerenovus finds] ## Uncover the inefficiencies hiding in your company's data Interviews show the work people describe. Cerenovus reads how the work actually happened, so it finds the problems that sit between teams, where no single department is looking. ### Work that should be automated Recurring work done by hand: re-keying between systems, spreadsheet reconciliations, approvals chased by email. ExampleAbout 1,400 trade confirmations a day are faxed, printed, and typed back in by hand. ### Duplicated work Two teams keep the same records, build the same report, or run rival systems for one job, often for years. ExampleTwo risk groups keep the same book, against the risk chief's instruction. ### Teams pulling against each other Overlapping mandates, conflicting incentives, and different definitions of the same number. ExampleRetail and wholesale chase the same customers, and nobody decides who owns them. ### Bottlenecks and waiting Approvals, queues, and handoffs where work waits, and the workarounds that grow up around them. ExampleEvery new customer waits for a nightly credit list, so urgent deals run on rush emails. ### Key-person risk Critical work that lives with one person, with no backup and nothing written down. ExampleWhen one analyst leaves, the regulatory reporting and settlements stop, because she was their only owner and nothing was documented. ### Decisions made without the evidence Warnings that never reach the room, and projects approved against the company's own analysis. ExampleA priced $100M credit warning sits for twenty months before a $710.6M loss. ### Fixes that stalled Automations built but never switched on, and initiatives reported as done that the work does not reflect. ExampleThe finished onboarding automation waits in IT's queue while staff key customers in by hand. ### Value leakage Money that slips away in daily work: terms not enforced, prices not checked, costs booked to the wrong place. ExampleInvoices are checked against contract prices one deal at a time, by email. Examples come from Cerenovus's demonstration on the public Enron email corpus: 253,801 internal messages, read with no interviews. [Management questions] ## Put hard questions to the whole company. Cerenovus reads company systems, memos, and email together to answer each question. - Which problems should the team fix first? (Cerenovus capability: Value creation planning) - Where should automation and AI go first? (Cerenovus capability: Process and automation diagnostic) - Which teams duplicate work or pull against each other? (Cerenovus capability: Organizational alignment diagnostic) - Which findings would change the investment decision? (Cerenovus capability: Operational due diligence) [Capabilities] ## Six reviews that read the whole company [Value creation] ### Value Creation Planning Every initiative ranked, sized, owned, and linked to its source. ### Process & Automation Diagnostic Know what to automate first, and why. ### Organizational Alignment Diagnostic Find the friction between teams before you redraw the chart. [Deals and portfolio] ### Operational Due Diligence Know which operating claims hold up before you invest. ### Portfolio Performance Review Progress measured in the work, not in the status report. ### Post-Merger Integration Analysis Two ways of doing the same work, compared before you choose. [Review process] ## Six steps from company data to a finding you can check Your team sets the scope and approves access. Cerenovus does the reading, analysis, and checking across every approved source. ### Connect You approve read-only access to the systems in scope. No one has to clean up the files first. ### Read and match Cerenovus reads email, chat, documents, and system exports, and matches the same people and vendors across them. ### Analyze Cerenovus maps how work runs across workflows, systems, and processes, and finds the value creation opportunities in them. ### Check Every citation and calculation is checked against its source. A reviewer examines anything still open. ### Deliver Your team gets a value creation plan and supporting workbooks, with every opportunity ranked by value and linked to its source. ### Follow up If wanted, Cerenovus records each decision, so results can be compared months later. [Sources and calculations] ## Check the sources and calculations behind each finding. Your team can open the document, the ledger line, or the email behind any finding. ### Share Evidence found in one investigation reaches every related one. ### Challenge When two sources disagree, reviewers see both side by side. ### Calculate Every number shows its inputs and its formula. ### Rank Findings are ordered by their value to the business. [Operating analysis on demand] ## Put company-wide analysis behind your next decision. Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/how-it-works/ [How Cerenovus works] # How Cerenovus analyzes company data Cerenovus reads the systems you approve, maps how work runs across workflows, systems, and processes, and finds the value creation opportunities in them. - Review processSix steps from company data to a finding you can check - SetupPlug and play, with as little IT work as possible - Review controlsSeven controls under every review - Review levelsStart small and add data at any time. [Review process] ## Six steps from company data to a finding you can check Your team sets the scope and approves access. Cerenovus does the reading, analysis, and checking across every approved source. ### Connect You approve read-only access to the systems in scope. No one has to clean up the files first. ### Read and match Cerenovus reads email, chat, documents, and system exports, and matches the same people and vendors across them. ### Analyze Cerenovus maps how work runs across workflows, systems, and processes, and finds the value creation opportunities in them. ### Check Every citation and calculation is checked against its source. A reviewer examines anything still open. ### Deliver Your team gets a value creation plan and supporting workbooks, with every opportunity ranked by value and linked to its source. ### Follow up If wanted, Cerenovus records each decision, so results can be compared months later. [Client decisions] Partners, principals, and executives decide which findings matter, settle exceptions, and approve action. If they want, Cerenovus records their reasons and the results next to each finding. [Setup] ## Plug and play, with as little IT work as possible Connecting Cerenovus works like signing in to an app. The IT contact signs in to each system and approves a read-only connection, and Cerenovus takes care of the rest. [IT and security process] ## Six steps from scope to deletion Read how client data is protected. - Agree on scope with management and Cerenovus before signing data processing agreements. - Cerenovus provisions a private cloud machine for the deployment. - The IT contact signs in and approves each agreed connection with a few clicks. - No network or firewall changes are needed. - Cerenovus runs the review and delivers the findings. - Data is securely deleted after the engagement. [Hosting options] ## Three ways to run Cerenovus Every option keeps each client's data separate. The client chooses the option that fits its security rules. ### Separate Cerenovus cloud One private cloud machine per client. The fastest start and the least IT work. ### Client's own cloud Cerenovus runs inside the client's cloud account. ### Client's own servers Cerenovus runs on site. Requires extensive setup. [Review controls] ## Seven controls under every review Reading a whole company helps only when each answer can be traced. These controls tie every finding to its source. Tracking decisions and results, the last two, is optional. ### Matching companies, people, and obligations One customer can appear under different names in the accounting system, the sales system, and the contracts. Cerenovus works out which entries refer to the same customer. Reviewers can see each proposed match, how confident Cerenovus is, and which source supports it. Confirmed matches carry over to later reviews. Cerenovus keeps: companies and people, other names they appear under, relationships, confidence levels, dates, and reviewed exceptions. ### Tracing sources, coverage, and versions Cerenovus links every number and statement to the file version and period it came from. Reviewers can open citations, check calculations, and see any change made to the data. Interview notes and professional judgments are labeled apart from system data. Cerenovus lists every expected source that is missing or restricted. Cerenovus keeps: sources and versions, dates, citations, data changes, reviewer names, and sources read or missing. ### Access limited to authorized people Only people the client authorizes use Cerenovus, and they already hold the highest level of access to the data in scope. Cerenovus keeps: the sources in scope and the people the client has authorized. ### When sources disagree When two sources disagree, for example management's account and the contracts or operating data, Cerenovus keeps both, checks each against the rest of the record, and shows which one the evidence supports. If the record cannot settle it, the finding is marked open and names the source that would. Cerenovus keeps: conflicting statements, the evidence for each, how each conflict was resolved, and what is still open. ### How work moves between teams Cerenovus rebuilds how work happened from transactions, approvals, queues, and system events. Process owners can compare that history with written policy and see each stage, handoff, control, and exception. Cerenovus keeps: process stages, systems, owners, controls, tasks that wait on other work, handoffs, variations, and failure points. ### Decisions and expected effects If the client wants decisions tracked, Cerenovus records who reviewed an issue, what evidence they used, and what they decided. Reviewers can see the options considered, the approvals, and the expected effect on value, timing, or risk. When an assumption changes, the team can see which decisions need another look. Cerenovus keeps: issues, evidence, reviewer judgments, options, decisions, owners, approvals, actions, and expected effects. ### Actions and results If the client wants follow-up, Cerenovus records how management responded to each warning, forecast, and recommendation. Reviewers can check whether management acted and what changed, with links back to the original evidence. Teams can test earlier assumptions against later results. Cerenovus keeps: forecasts, warnings, recommendations, decisions to accept or reject them, later results, accuracy history, corrections, and conditions for reuse. [Review levels] ## Start small and add data at any time. Smaller reviews work best when focused on one team or question. Larger reviews give Cerenovus more context and evidence for its findings. * Depends on how many data sources are connected. Setup needs at least one IT contact and a call with Cerenovus. [Operating analysis on demand] ## Put company-wide analysis behind your next decision. Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/capabilities/ [What we do] # Company-wide analysis for transaction and portfolio decisions Cerenovus finds where a company can run better: the work to automate, the teams to realign, the bottlenecks to clear. It reads email, documents, and operating systems at once and ranks what it finds by value. Value creation ### Value Creation Planning Every initiative ranked, sized, owned, and linked to its source. ### Process & Automation Diagnostic Know what to automate first, and why. ### Organizational Alignment Diagnostic Find the friction between teams before you redraw the chart. Deals and portfolio ### Operational Due Diligence Know which operating claims hold up before you invest. ### Portfolio Performance Review Progress measured in the work, not in the status report. ### Post-Merger Integration Analysis Two ways of doing the same work, compared before you choose. [Operating analysis on demand] ## Put company-wide analysis behind your next decision. Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/capabilities/value-creation-opportunity-sizing/ # Value Creation Planning Every initiative ranked, sized, owned, and linked to its source. [Designed for] Funds and management teams agreeing what to do first after closing, and the operating partners who support them. [Overview] After closing, the fund and management need a shared plan, but board reports show little of how the work gets done. Cerenovus reads the email, documents, and systems the company already uses and builds a ranked value creation plan: each initiative sized from named inputs, linked to its source, and given an owner role. The first 100 days then start from the record. [On this page] - Questions this review answers - What Cerenovus typically finds - 5 steps from question to decision - What your team receives [Questions] ## Questions this review answers What the fund and management need to settle before they commit people and budget to the plan. Which initiatives should start now, and which can wait? What is each initiative worth, and which inputs drive the estimate? Can the current team carry this plan and still run the business? Which initiatives cannot start until another one finishes? [Findings] ## What Cerenovus typically finds The plan covers all eight kinds of opportunity. These are the findings that change what goes first once the evidence is in. ### Value the deal model did not include Opportunities outside the investment case, such as one task done by two teams or a slow customer setup. Each is sized from named inputs and ranked beside the initiatives already planned. ### Quick wins that need no new system Changes to request routing, report packs, and handoff rules that can start in the first month. Each is sized from hours in the records, so early wins are chosen on evidence. ### Initiatives that must go in order Some fixes depend on others. A pricing change may first need sales and finance to agree on what counts as a customer. The plan sets that order before budgets are committed. ### Initiatives competing for the same people The shadow org chart shows the same few people on the critical path of several priorities. The plan spaces those initiatives out instead of stacking them on one team. ### Inherited programs to restart or stop Programs started before the deal that the daily record shows are stalled or half adopted. Each returns with a fresh estimate, so management can restart or stop it. ### Estimates the records cannot support yet Where data is missing or inconsistent, the plan says so, names the input it needs, and keeps the estimate as a range until management supplies it. [Approach] ## 5 steps from question to decision From read-only access, the target for ranked findings is about one week. The final step belongs to the people who will run the plan. Agree the goals, scope, and exclusions Open read-only access to approved sources Rebuild workflows, handoffs, and the shadow org chart Size, cite, and rank every opportunity Fund and management approve the plan [Deliverables] ## What your team receives Each deliverable is built for the first board review after closing and for the people who will run the work. ### Ranked value creation plan Initiatives in priority order, each with the problem, cause, proposed fix, owner role, and estimate range, and a link to the source behind every line. ### Sizing workbooks The hours, people, volumes, and costs behind each estimate, with assumptions stated and missing data flagged, so the fund and management can test every number. ### Board deck and supporting maps A deck in your template, today and proposed workflow maps with manual steps marked, plus organization and key-person maps. [Client decisions] The fund and management decide which initiatives to back, in what order, and who owns each one. Cerenovus provides the evidence and the estimates behind those choices. Cerenovus is the scan; your team leads the treatment. [Related work] ### Operational Due Diligence ### Operating Partners & Portfolio Operations ### Portfolio Performance Review [Operating analysis on demand] ## Build the plan on what the records show Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/capabilities/process-automation-diagnostic/ # Process & Automation Diagnostic Know what to automate first, and why. [Designed for] Operating partners, COOs, CFOs, and technology leaders deciding where software and AI should take over manual work. [Overview] Much of a company's work still moves by hand: records re-keyed between systems, spreadsheet reconciliations, approvals chased by email, and workarounds for tools that fall short. Cerenovus rebuilds each process from the records the work leaves behind and marks the manual steps and the waits around them. Your team gets ranked automation cases, each sized and linked to its source. [On this page] - Questions this review answers - What Cerenovus typically finds - 5 steps from question to decision - What your team receives [Questions] ## Questions this review answers The questions management asks before committing budget to automation, answered from how the work actually runs rather than how it is described. Which steps are still done by hand, and how many hours do they take? Where does work wait on approvals that someone chases by email? Which workarounds exist only because a tool no longer does its job? Which steps suit software, which suit AI, and which should stay with people? [Findings] ## What Cerenovus typically finds Manual work rarely shows up in a system inventory or a process document. It shows up in the records, and in how long work sits between them. ### Re-keying between systems The same order, invoice, or customer record typed into two or three systems by hand. Cerenovus matches the entries across systems and counts how often it happens and in which team. ### Spreadsheet reconciliations Weekly or monthly reconciliations rebuilt in spreadsheets because two systems disagree. Tracing each file to the systems it pulls from shows where the mismatch starts and how many hours go into closing it. ### Approvals chased by email Sign-offs that live in inboxes instead of a system, kept moving by reminders. Cerenovus measures how often the answer is simply yes, and how long orders or invoices sit while they wait. ### Workarounds for tools that fall short Side spreadsheets, shared inboxes, and manual exports that fill a gap a system leaves. Cerenovus links each workaround to the tool behind it and to any fix that stalled. ### Automations built but never switched on Tickets and project files often show integrations, scripts, or bots that were built or bought, then left unused while staff kept doing the same work by hand. ### Steps that should stay with people Cerenovus marks the steps that need judgment, such as credit exceptions or pricing disputes, so each case states what software would handle and what still needs a person. [Approach] ## 5 steps from question to decision Scope runs from a single process to the whole company. The aim is a ranked list of automation cases within about a week of read-only access. Agree on the processes and sources in scope Map each process as it actually runs Mark manual steps and waiting time Size and check each case against sources Rank cases for your team to decide [Deliverables] ## What your team receives Everything arrives in a form your team can check, edit, and take into budget and vendor decisions. ### Today and proposed workflow maps Each process drawn step by step across teams and systems, with manual steps and waiting time marked, beside the proposed version after automation. ### Sized automation cases A workbook of cases with volumes, hours, people, and cost as ranges, assumptions stated, and every figure checked and linked to the record behind it. ### Ranked automation plan A value creation plan built from the ranked cases, with each process split into work for software, work for AI, and work that needs a person's judgment. [Client decisions] Management and process owners decide which cases to fund, which tools or vendors to buy, and where a person keeps the final say. Cerenovus does not build or install the automation; your team leads the change. [Related work] ### Value Creation Planning ### Organizational Alignment Diagnostic ### Portfolio Company Leadership [Operating analysis on demand] ## See where software and AI should go first Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/capabilities/organizational-alignment-diagnostic/ # Organizational Alignment Diagnostic Find the friction between teams before you redraw the chart. [Designed for] Operating partners, CEOs and COOs, and the advisers who help them redesign structure, roles, or incentives. [Overview] Friction often sits between teams: two groups working the same accounts, one number defined two ways, a process that stalls when one person is away. With the client's approval, Cerenovus connects read-only to email, chat, and system records, rebuilds who works with whom, and draws the shadow org chart beside the official one. Each finding is sized and linked to its source. [On this page] - Questions this review answers - What Cerenovus typically finds - 5 steps from question to decision - What your team receives [Questions] ## Questions this review answers Leaders often sense friction between teams long before they can point to it. This review locates it in the records rather than in opinion. Which work is being done twice, by teams that do not know it? Who owns the customer when Sales and Service both work the account? Why do Sales and Finance report different revenue for the same month? Which processes stall when one person is out for a week? [Findings] ## What Cerenovus typically finds Each finding names the teams, roles, and systems involved, the hours or volume at stake, and the records behind it. ### Duplicated work The same records, report, or tracker kept by two teams for one purpose. Cerenovus shows both copies, the role that maintains each, and the hours each one takes. ### Undefined team boundaries Customers, requests, or regions that two teams both work, and others that neither picks up. Cerenovus maps where each team actually operates and where no boundary was ever drawn. ### Conflicting incentives Sales paid on bookings while Operations is measured on margin, or a target that rewards one team for work another must undo. Cerenovus links the rework, escalations, and discount exceptions in the record to the target behind them. ### Different definitions of one number Revenue, margin, or headcount calculated differently in separate spreadsheets. Cerenovus lists each definition, where it is used, and which meetings and decisions rely on which version. ### Key-person dependence A process, customer relationship, or system that only one role knows how to run. The map shows every handoff that passes through that role and what would stall in its absence. ### Decisions with no owner Recurring calls, such as pricing exceptions or priorities between teams, that move from thread to thread until someone senior steps in. Cerenovus traces where they wait and who ends up deciding. [Approach] ## 5 steps from question to decision The review starts from a question about how the organization works and ends with structural options your leadership team can weigh. Agree on the teams and questions in scope Rebuild who works with whom from records Compare the shadow and official org charts Size duplication, overlap, and key-person exposure Review structural options with your leaders [Deliverables] ## What your team receives Outputs your executives can open, check against the source, and bring to the conversation about structure. ### Organization and key-person map The shadow org chart beside the official one: which roles carry the most handoffs, where teams overlap, and which processes depend on one person. ### Alignment findings register Every duplication, boundary gap, conflicting incentive, competing definition, and unowned decision, with the teams involved, estimated hours or volume, and links to the records behind it. ### Ranked structural options Changes to owners, boundaries, shared definitions, and incentives, each sized from named inputs and linked to its sources, ready to sit in a value creation plan. [Client decisions] Your leaders decide on structure, roles, incentives, and shared definitions, and they lead the conversations with their teams. Cerenovus locates and sizes each issue; the redesign belongs to your team. [Related work] ### Value Creation Planning ### Portfolio Company Leadership ### Post-Merger Integration Analysis [Operating analysis on demand] ## Map the work between your teams Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/capabilities/operational-due-diligence/ # Operational Due Diligence Know which operating claims hold up before you invest. [Designed for] Deal teams, operating partners, and advisers who need management's operating claims checked against the record before signing. [Overview] Before an investment, a deal team sees the company largely through management's account. Cerenovus reads the data room and approved sources, tests each operating claim against the documents behind it, and sizes the value creation upside early. The investment committee sees which claims the records support, which they contradict, and what is still open. [On this page] - Questions this review answers - What Cerenovus typically finds - 5 steps from question to decision - What your team receives [Questions] ## Questions this review answers What a deal team needs answered from the records themselves, claim by claim. Can current capacity, staffing, and systems deliver the growth in management's plan? Which operating claims do the documents contradict, and which can nobody yet verify? Do management's claims about key people and customer concentration hold up in the records? How much operating upside can be sized from the data room before the price is set? [Findings] ## What Cerenovus typically finds Where management's account and the records most often part ways, and where the upside sits. Each finding is cited and states what remains unverified. ### Capacity claims the records do not support Order backlogs, overtime, and shift patterns show the operation already near its limit, while the plan assumes growth on today's headcount and equipment. ### System rollouts that are not finished Management describes the new system as live everywhere, while invoices, exports, and email show some sites still working in the old one, or in spreadsheets beside it. ### Teams pulling against the growth plan Management presents one growth plan. Commission plans, discount approvals, and email show sales paid on volume while operations and finance are held to margin, so the teams pull in opposite directions. ### Key-person claims the inboxes contradict The presentation says no one person is critical. Approvals, replies, and file edits show pricing, the largest accounts, or a plant's schedule handled by one employee, with work stalling whenever that person is away. ### Concentration behind a broad base The presentation lists many active accounts. Invoices and order history show most of the margin coming from a few of them, or supply depending on a single vendor. ### Operating upside, sized before pricing Production schedules rebuilt by hand each week, reporting compiled twice by different teams, and expediting that better planning would avoid. Each is sized as a range from named inputs before the price is set. [Approach] ## 5 steps from question to decision The review starts from management's claims and ends with a ledger the deal team can defend. List management's operating claims Read the data room and approved sources Mark each claim supported, contradicted, or open Size the upside and state the gaps Deal team takes the ledger to committee [Deliverables] ## What your team receives Material for the committee meeting, with each claim one click from the evidence behind it. ### Claims workbook Every operating claim in management's case, marked supported, contradicted, or open, with linked evidence for and against it and the missing sources that would settle each open one. ### Early value creation plan Opportunities visible in the data room, ranked and sized as ranges from named inputs, so the deal team can weigh the upside before pricing and carry it past closing. ### Investment committee deck The contradicted claims, the questions to put to management, and the sized upside, laid out in the deal team's own committee format. [Client decisions] The deal team decides which contradicted claims change the price or the conditions, and which open ones go back to management. The investment committee decides whether to invest. [Related work] ### Deal Teams & Investment Committees ### Transaction Advisory & Due Diligence ### Value Creation Planning [Operating analysis on demand] ## Start the next diligence from the records Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/capabilities/post-merger-integration-analysis/ # Post-Merger Integration Analysis Two ways of doing the same work, compared before you choose. [Designed for] Integration leaders, operating partners, and the functional heads who will run the combined processes once two companies merge. [Overview] Integration plans are usually drawn from two org charts and a stack of process documents. Cerenovus reads both companies' working records and maps each process side by side: matched steps, overlapping functions, duplicate systems, and the people the work depends on. Each difference links to the records behind it, so process owners can design the combined company from the work itself. [On this page] - Questions this review answers - What Cerenovus typically finds - 5 steps from question to decision - What your team receives [Questions] ## Questions this review answers The questions integration leaders need answered before they commit to an operating model, a systems choice, or a new organization design. Where do the two companies run the same process in different ways? Which overlapping systems can be retired, and what work runs only in each? Which people does each process depend on, and whom must the combined team keep? Which controls must the combined process keep from each side? [Findings] ## What Cerenovus typically finds Two companies can look alike on paper and still run differently. The records show where they differ, and what each difference means for the combined design. ### Same process, different method Both companies approve purchases and onboard customers, but with different steps, sign-offs, controls, and timing. Cerenovus lines each process up step by step, so leaders compare like with like before choosing one. ### Steps only one company performs An extra approval, a manual quality check, or a customer call may exist in one company only. Each is marked, so process owners choose to keep, drop, or merge it instead of losing it when the teams combine. ### Duplicate systems with different jobs Two ERPs or two CRMs can look interchangeable on a systems list. The records show what each one handles, including work the other company runs in spreadsheets and email. ### Functions that overlap in name only Teams with the same title often do different work. Cerenovus compares what each team handles and in what volume, so the combined organization is designed around the work, not the job titles. ### Steps that depend on one person In either company, one person may release every supplier payment, set up all new customer accounts, or maintain the pricing rules. Cerenovus flags each from how work routes, so the combined design can plan cover for them. ### Workloads that peak in the same week Two purchasing teams may look easy to combine until the records show both are busiest in the same week each month. Cerenovus measures volume and timing per team, so leaders size the combined team for its real workload. [Approach] ## 5 steps from question to decision Each analysis starts from the processes your integration team names and ends with a register of differences, each one ready for a process owner's decision. Set the integration questions and scope Connect approved sources in both companies Map each process side by side Compare teams, workloads, and key people Process owners decide each difference [Deliverables] ## What your team receives Each deliverable links to its sources, so the integration team can check it, edit it, and use it in design decisions. ### Side-by-side workflow maps Each process in scope drawn for both companies as it runs today, with matched steps, steps unique to one side, systems used, and manual steps marked, beside the proposed combined version. ### Difference register Each step, control, or system difference between the two companies, with a keep, drop, or merge recommendation, the owner role, and the records behind it. ### Organization maps for both companies Both companies' shadow org charts, drawn from how work moves, with the functions that overlap across them and the people each combined process will rely on. [Client decisions] Process owners and integration leaders decide each combined design: which steps, controls, and systems to keep, who owns each step, and how the teams are organized. Cerenovus maps both companies and cites the records; your team designs and runs the integration. [Related work] ### Corporate Development & Integration Teams ### Organizational Alignment Diagnostic ### Process & Automation Diagnostic [Operating analysis on demand] ## Plan the integration from how both companies run Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/capabilities/portfolio-performance-review/ # Portfolio Performance Review Progress measured in the work, not in the status report. [Designed for] Operating partners, boards, and portfolio company executives responsible for delivering a value creation plan. [Overview] Every initiative in the value creation plan gets a quarterly status, but a status line cannot show whether the work itself changed. Cerenovus re-reads the same approved sources, read-only, each quarter and shows which initiatives changed how work gets done, which stalled, and what new problems appeared. Boards and operating partners judge progress on that evidence. [On this page] - Questions this review answers - What Cerenovus typically finds - 5 steps from question to decision - What your team receives [Questions] ## Questions this review answers What boards and operating partners ask once the plan is underway and status updates start to arrive. Which initiatives changed how the work is actually done, and which changed only on paper? Where has an initiative stalled, and what is it waiting on? What new bottlenecks, workarounds, or single points of failure have appeared since last quarter? Is the effort still going to the right initiatives, or has a bigger problem appeared? [Findings] ## What Cerenovus typically finds What changes, or fails to change, between one quarter's records and the next. ### Initiatives marked done but not in use A new approval workflow or automation is reported complete, while the records show the old spreadsheet, email chain, or manual step still carrying most of the volume. ### Fixes stalled without an owner Work stops between teams: a decision waits in an inbox, a configuration change waits on IT, or nobody picked up the next step when the project lead moved on. ### Workarounds created by the change itself A system cutover or reorganization removes one task and adds another: reports rebuilt outside the new tool, approvals routed around it, a tracking spreadsheet on the side. ### Dependence that grew after the change After a consolidation, more approvals and handoffs route through one person or one shared inbox than in the quarter before, so a single absence now holds up the work. ### Gains that quietly reverse Cycle times and manual hours improve after launch, then drift back as exceptions pile up and people return to the old way of working. ### Effort aimed at last year's problem Since the plan was written, a larger problem has grown, such as credit holds chased by hand, while time and attention still go to initiatives that now matter less. [Approach] ## 5 steps from question to decision The same questions, asked again each quarter, against the same kinds of records. Set each initiative's expected change in the work Re-read the records every quarter Compare reported status with change in the work Flag drift, stalls, and new problems Board and management reset priorities [Deliverables] ## What your team receives Three outputs for the next review of the plan, from the detail of each initiative to the board update. ### Quarterly initiative tracker Each initiative's reported status beside its status in the work, with drift flagged and the email, ticket, or file behind every marker. ### Workflow maps, intended and actual The workflow the plan intended beside the one the records show today, with manual steps marked, so it is clear where the change took hold. ### Board update in your template Stalled initiatives with their likely causes, new problems sized from named inputs, and the open questions for management, ready for the next board meeting. [Client decisions] The board and operating partners judge performance and decide which initiatives to restart, change, or stop. Management explains what the records show. Cerenovus provides the evidence behind each marker and flags the gaps, and can record each decision for the next review. [Related work] ### Value Creation Planning ### Operating Partners & Portfolio Operations ### Portfolio Company Leadership [Operating analysis on demand] ## See which initiatives changed the work Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/who-we-serve/ [Who we serve] # Analysis for deal teams, operating partners, and consultants Private equity, consulting, advisory, and corporate development teams share one limit. The data that answers their questions is too large and scattered to read by hand before the deadline. Cerenovus reads it and returns findings each team can check. Private Equity ### Operating Partners & Portfolio Operations One method across the portfolio, priorities ranked in each company. ### Portfolio Company Leadership Trace the numbers you manage to the work that produces them. ### Deal Teams & Investment Committees The thesis tested before the vote, and a plan ready for day one. Consulting & Advisory ### Operational Consulting & Performance Improvement Start every engagement from the whole record, not a sample. ### Corporate Development & Integration Teams Test every synergy before you build the integration plan around it. ### Transaction Advisory & Due Diligence Read the whole data room and trace every exception to its source. [Operating analysis on demand] ## Put company-wide analysis behind your next decision. Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/who-we-serve/private-equity/ # Private Equity Build the value creation plan from how the company actually runs. [Designed for] Deal teams, investment committees, operating partners, value-creation teams, and portfolio company leaders. [Overview] Most of a deal's return is made after closing, in how well the company runs. Cerenovus reads a portfolio company's own systems, from e-mail and chat to the ERP and CRM, and shows how work actually gets done: where it should be automated, where teams pull against each other, and where the plan depends on one person. Operating partners and management build the value creation plan from evidence they can check. [On this page] - 5 steps from question to decision - Work covered for this team [Engagement steps] ## 5 steps from question to decision Your team sets the questions and approves which systems Cerenovus can read. Cerenovus works through every related question at once and returns findings ranked by value. Your team decides what to do. Agree the value-creation questions Connect approved systems, read-only Rebuild how work moves across teams Size and rank each opportunity Assign owners and track the plan [Coverage] ## Work covered for this team ### Operating partners start the hundred days with evidence About a week after read-only access, Cerenovus returns a ranked register of opportunities: work to automate, duplicated effort, misaligned teams, and bottlenecks. Each one is sized from named inputs and cited to the records behind it. ### Deal teams see how the company runs before they own it Where a data room or early access allows, Cerenovus tests management's account of how the business operates against the documents themselves, and lists what the evidence cannot yet show. ### New leadership gets a first-hand read of the organization When a CEO, CFO, or CTO changes, Cerenovus gives the incoming team a picture of how work really flows, who holds critical knowledge, and where earlier fixes stalled, without relying on the accounts of people with a stake in the answer. ### Boards see whether initiatives show up in the work Re-running the same questions each quarter shows which initiatives are changing how the company runs and which exist only in the deck. [Client decisions] The fund and board decide what to invest in and how to oversee the company. Management chooses and leads the operating changes. [Related work] ### Operating Partners & Portfolio Operations ### Value Creation Planning ### Portfolio Company Leadership [Operating analysis on demand] ## Build your next value creation plan from evidence Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/who-we-serve/operating-partners-portfolio-operations/ # Operating Partners & Portfolio Operations One method across the portfolio, priorities ranked in each company. [Designed for] Operating partners, value creation teams, and portfolio operations leads who support several companies at once. [Overview] Each portfolio company runs on its own systems and reports progress in its own way, so the portfolio is hard to compare. Cerenovus connects read-only to each company's systems and maps every company's workflows, handoffs, and teams the same way. Your team sees each company's opportunities ranked by estimated value, and which problems repeat across the portfolio. [On this page] - Questions this team brings - What Cerenovus typically finds - 5 steps from question to decision - What your team receives [Questions] ## Questions this team brings The questions an operating partner brings to a portfolio, answered from each company's own records rather than from the reporting pack. Where is the biggest value creation opportunity in each company, and how large is it? Which problems repeat across companies, and which belong to one company only? Where should my team's limited time go first across the portfolio? Which fix that worked in one company could carry over to the others? [Findings] ## What Cerenovus typically finds Patterns that stay hidden when each company is reviewed on its own, and that show once every company is read with the same questions. ### The same manual work in several companies Hand-built price lists, month-end spreadsheet roll-ups, and sign-offs held in one inbox often recur across companies. Each instance is sized in hours and people, so one fix can be weighed for the whole portfolio. ### One metric, defined differently by each company Gross margin, backlog, or churn is often calculated one way in one company and another way in the next. Cerenovus shows how each company actually computes the number, so comparisons across the portfolio hold. ### Fund reporting rebuilt by hand each month Finance teams often assemble the same figures by hand for board packs and fund reporting. Cerenovus traces each pack to the files and systems it draws on and measures the hours spent building it. ### Delays hidden behind on-time reporting A company can close its books on time while customer orders wait days for a credit check or a pricing exception. Cerenovus measures the waiting between steps, so slow handoffs show up before they cost orders. ### Thin teams in smaller companies A function staffed by a team in one company is often one controller or one planner in the next. Cerenovus shows which approvals, files, and questions depend on that person, and what would stall if they left. ### A top priority missing from the plan The most valuable opportunity in a company is not always the one in its current plan. The ranking shows both, with the inputs and sources behind each estimate, so the discussion starts from evidence. [Approach] ## 5 steps from question to decision Every company goes through the same steps on the same clock, so the results line up and can be compared across the portfolio. Agree on companies, questions, and sources Open read-only access in each company Rank each company's opportunities by value Compare patterns across the portfolio Set priorities and owners with each management team [Deliverables] ## What your team receives Your team receives a plan for each company and a portfolio view that ties them together, in a form each management team can check. ### A value creation plan per company Built in the same format for every company, so initiatives can be read side by side, with each estimate traced to the records behind it. ### A portfolio comparison workbook A workbook that sets every company against the same finding types, with estimated ranges and stated assumptions, so your team can compare companies on equal terms and spot recurring problems. ### A board-ready deck per company A deck in your firm's template for each company's board, with the workflow maps and organization maps behind its top priorities. [Client decisions] Operating partners and each management team decide which priorities to fund, who owns them, and in what order. Cerenovus supplies the ranking, the estimates, and the sources; each company's team leads the change. [Related work] ### Value Creation Planning ### Portfolio Performance Review ### Portfolio Company Leadership [Operating analysis on demand] ## Start with one company in your portfolio Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/who-we-serve/portfolio-company-leadership/ # Portfolio Company Leadership Trace the numbers you manage to the work that produces them. [Designed for] CEOs, CFOs, COOs, and technology leaders of portfolio companies, including executives new to the role. [Overview] Reports reach the leadership team after several rounds of summary, and the reason a number moved rarely travels with them. Cerenovus reads the company's own records, read-only, and traces each result to the queue, handoff, or person behind it. A leader new to the role gets a first-hand read of how the company runs, not another summary of it. [On this page] - Questions this team brings - What Cerenovus typically finds - 5 steps from question to decision - What your team receives [Questions] ## Questions this team brings What chief executives, finance and operating chiefs, and technology leaders ask when the monthly pack says what happened but not why. Delivery has slipped for two months. Where is the work stuck? Who does the work really run through? Where are two of my teams pulling against each other, and why? New in the role: how does this company run beneath its reports? [Findings] ## What Cerenovus typically finds What sits beneath the monthly pack and rarely reaches the leadership table. Each finding is sized from named inputs and linked to the record behind it. ### A miss caused in another team A delivery, margin, or cash figure one team is held to, driven by a queue or sign-off inside a different team, with the volumes and waiting time involved and the records that show them. ### The shadow org chart Who people actually go to for answers, approvals, and exceptions, set against the official structure: the managers routed around, and the individuals carrying work well beyond their role. ### Two versions of the same figure Sales and Finance bringing different bookings or margin figures to the same leadership meeting, each built from its own system and definition, and the hours spent each month reconciling the two. ### Critical work resting on one person Pricing approvals, a large account, or a month-end step that waits on one employee, how much work queues behind them, and what stops the week they are away. ### Decisions made without evidence on file Leadership choices made while the analysis, warning, or customer complaint that bore on them sat in an inbox, a shared drive, or a ticket queue and never reached the people deciding. ### What a new leader inherits For an executive new to the role: open customer commitments, half-finished system projects, and standing workarounds, found in contracts, tickets, and email rather than in the handover notes. [Approach] ## 5 steps from question to decision It starts from a number or question already on the leadership agenda. Connecting usually takes one to four hours of your IT team's time, with no network or firewall changes in the standard setup. Name the number or question that matters Approve read-only sources and set exclusions Rebuild how the work runs today Trace causes and size each opportunity Leadership decides what to change [Deliverables] ## What your team receives Built for the leadership meeting and the board pack. Any line can be opened to the email, record, or file it rests on. ### Operating map beneath the numbers Workflow maps for the processes behind the figures leadership tracks, today and proposed, with queues, handoffs, approvals, and manual steps marked. ### Organization and key-person map The shadow org chart drawn against the formal one: who the work depends on, where teams overlap, and which roles hold knowledge nobody else has. ### Ranked plan tied to the numbers A value creation plan that ties each initiative to the reported figure it should move, sized from named inputs, in your deck template for leadership and board meetings. [Client decisions] The chief executive and leadership team decide what the findings mean, which changes to make, and who owns each one. Their teams lead the work. Cerenovus traces the causes and sizes each opportunity; it does not run the change. [Related work] ### Organizational Alignment Diagnostic ### Value Creation Planning ### Portfolio Performance Review [Operating analysis on demand] ## Bring the number you cannot explain Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/who-we-serve/deal-teams-investment-committees/ # Deal Teams & Investment Committees The thesis tested before the vote, and a plan ready for day one. [Designed for] Deal professionals building the case for a new platform or add-on, and the committee members who vote on it. [Overview] An investment thesis assumes the company can deliver its plan with the people, customers, and systems it already has. Within the deal timetable, Cerenovus tests that operating case against the approved diligence material. The committee votes knowing what the records support and what is still unknown, and the new owners start day one with a ranked plan. [On this page] - Questions this team brings - What Cerenovus typically finds - 5 steps from question to decision - What your team receives [Questions] ## Questions this team brings What deal professionals and committee members ask when the timetable is fixed and the vote depends on how the company really runs. Does the operating case behind the thesis hold up in the company's own records? Which findings should change the price, the structure, or the conditions of the deal? Which parts of the memo are tested, and which still rest on management's word? What should the new owners start on the day the deal closes? [Findings] ## What Cerenovus typically finds What deal teams typically learn when the investment case is tested against the records before the committee meets. Each finding cites its source and states what is still unknown. ### Growth levers the operation cannot yet carry Cross-selling, pricing, or add-on integration in the model depends on work that today runs through spreadsheets, manual sign-offs, or one team already at capacity. ### Thesis points resting on one source Some parts of the investment case are supported only by a management presentation or a single spreadsheet. Each one is flagged, so the memo states how firm the point is before the vote. ### Upside the base case already counts Some cost or growth initiatives in the model were tried before and stalled, as the records show. Flagging them keeps the deal team from paying for the same upside twice. ### Large renewals soon after close Renewal dates and escalation threads show which large customers or suppliers come up for renewal in the first year of ownership, and which of those relationships are already strained. ### Key people the retention plan must cover Key accounts, pricing knowledge, and supplier relationships often sit with one or two people below the top team. Patterns in who sends, approves, and answers show who they are before signing. ### Decisions that still route to the founder Discounts, exceptions, and escalations still reach the founder or one executive, regardless of title. That shapes succession, the management incentive plan, and what has to be delegated first after close. [Approach] ## 5 steps from question to decision The work runs on the deal timetable, from thesis to committee vote to day one. Turn the thesis into operating questions Test each point against approved sources Take open questions into management sessions Supply cited inputs for the committee memo Carry the ranked plan into day one [Deliverables] ## What your team receives Three outputs, each timed to a milestone in the deal: the management sessions, the committee vote, and the first day of ownership. ### Committee memo inputs Exhibits for the investment memo showing which parts of the thesis the records support, which rest on one source, and which are still open on the day of the vote. ### Risk register and management questions Dependencies on people, customers, and suppliers, and each evidence gap, tied to the part of the thesis it affects, with the questions to raise in management sessions. ### Day-one value creation plan A value creation plan ready at close, ranked by estimated range and cited, so the new owners start on the work the thesis depends on. [Client decisions] The deal team decides what the evidence means for price and terms, and the investment committee votes. After close, the new owners and management choose which day-one initiatives to start and who leads them. [Related work] ### Operational Due Diligence ### Value Creation Planning ### Private Equity [Operating analysis on demand] ## Go into the vote knowing what the records support Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/who-we-serve/consulting-corporate-development-advisory/ # Consulting & Advisory Cerenovus is the scan. You lead the treatment. [Designed for] Consulting partners, operating-model and technology advisers, transaction advisers, and corporate development leaders. [Overview] Consultants, advisers, and corporate development teams are paid for judgment, but spend much of every engagement gathering facts. Cerenovus does the reading across e-mail, chat, systems, and files, and hands the team a cited picture of how the company works, so the people on the engagement can focus on deciding and leading change. [On this page] - 5 steps from question to decision - Work covered for this team [Engagement steps] ## 5 steps from question to decision Your team sets the questions and approves which systems Cerenovus can read. Cerenovus works through every related question at once and returns findings ranked by value. Your team decides what to do. Agree scope with the client Connect approved sources, read-only Rebuild how the company works Review findings and estimates Recommend and lead the change [Coverage] ## Work covered for this team ### Advisers arrive at the first workshop with evidence Before the first client session, the team can see the workflows, handoffs, and pain points the record shows, with the e-mails and files behind each one. ### A tool inside the engagement, not a competitor Cerenovus does not implement. Findings go to the advisers who own the client relationship and lead the change, and the read can be priced into the engagement as a fixed-fee diagnostic. ### Advisers set the standard Project teams set the scope, the questions, and the reporting format. Cerenovus follows those instructions and supplies the evidence and calculations. [Client decisions] Advisers set the scope and exercise professional judgment. They and the client's executives decide what to recommend and how to carry it out. [Related work] ### Operational Consulting & Performance Improvement ### Transaction Advisory & Due Diligence ### Corporate Development & Integration Teams [Operating analysis on demand] ## Bring Cerenovus into your next engagement Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/who-we-serve/performance-improvement-operational-consulting/ # Operational Consulting & Performance Improvement Start every engagement from the whole record, not a sample. [Designed for] Partners and engagement teams in performance improvement, operating model, and transformation consulting. [Overview] Diagnostics often open with weeks of interviews and data requests, so the first hypotheses rest on a few people's recall. Cerenovus reads the client's email, tickets, and system records first and rebuilds each process as it actually runs. Evidence-backed hypotheses are targeted for about a week after read-only access, so interviews test them and more of the engagement goes to root causes and change. [On this page] - Questions this team brings - What Cerenovus typically finds - 5 steps from question to decision - What your team receives [Questions] ## Questions this team brings Asked in the opening weeks of an engagement and answered from what the client's systems show, not from recollection. How does work really move here, beyond the process maps the client handed over? Which interviews matter most, and what should each one test? Is this delay the root cause, or a symptom of something upstream? Can the client trace each recommendation and estimate back to its source? [Findings] ## What Cerenovus typically finds What a consulting team typically learns from the client's records while the first interviews are still being scheduled. ### The documented process versus the real one Process maps and procedure manuals describe how work should move. The record shows the steps people skip, the side channels they use, and where work loops back, so your team starts from the process as it runs. ### Interview accounts the record does not support A supervisor says urgent requests skip the queue. The record shows them waiting in line with everything else. Knowing where accounts and records part ways, your team decides which interviews to hold and what each should test. ### Several symptoms with one root cause Missed delivery dates, expedite fees, and customer complaints can all trace back to one handoff where order details are lost between sales and planning. Cerenovus follows each symptom upstream until the paths meet. ### Fixes the client has already tried The record shows earlier initiatives, the tools bought for them, and where adoption stopped, so the recommendation deals with why the last attempt failed instead of repeating it. ### A baseline drawn from the client's systems Cycle times, volumes, rework, and waiting are read from the client's own records before anything changes, so the starting point is documented rather than estimated in a workshop. ### Work that waits more than it moves A request that takes minutes to handle can sit for days between handoffs. The record shows which queue holds it, for how long, and who releases it, so the redesign targets the wait. [Approach] ## 5 steps from question to decision The read runs alongside your team's own planning, so ranked hypotheses are ready to test before the first workshop. Agree scope and sources with the client Client approves read-only access Read the record and rank hypotheses Test hypotheses in interviews and workshops Your team designs and leads the change [Deliverables] ## What your team receives Working material for the engagement team, built so the client can open any finding and see the record it came from. ### Hypotheses, ranked by value A value creation plan written as hypotheses for your team to test, each with its likely cause, an estimated range, and the records behind it. Interviews and deep dives start from it. ### Workflow maps, today and proposed How work moves now and how it could move, with manual steps and waiting marked, ready to put in front of the client in a workshop. ### Sizing workbooks and a deck Workbooks with inputs, ranges, and stated assumptions, plus a deck in your firm's template. The client can trace every figure to the source behind it. [Client decisions] Your team and the client's leaders judge the causes, choose the recommendations, and decide how the change runs; your team leads it. Cerenovus provides the evidence, the estimates, and the sources behind each choice. [Related work] ### Process & Automation Diagnostic ### Organizational Alignment Diagnostic ### Consulting & Advisory [Operating analysis on demand] ## Walk into the first workshop with hypotheses Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/who-we-serve/transaction-advisory-due-diligence/ # Transaction Advisory & Due Diligence Read the whole data room and trace every exception to its source. [Designed for] Transaction advisory partners and managers, and the operational and technology diligence teams on each engagement. [Overview] Advisory teams rarely have time to read a whole data room closely before the deadline. Cerenovus reads every approved document, tests management's operating story against them, and logs each exception with its source. Advisers spend the diligence window on judgment, and their report can state exactly which sources were read and which were missing. [On this page] - Questions this team brings - What Cerenovus typically finds - 5 steps from question to decision - What your team receives [Questions] ## Questions this team brings What an advisory team needs settled before the report is signed, within the time the deal allows. Can each statement in the report be traced to a specific document? Where does management's operating story differ from what the documents show? Which exceptions are still open, and which source would close each one? Which gaps in the data room must the report state as limitations? [Findings] ## What Cerenovus typically finds Exceptions that recur when a full data room is read against management's account. Each one is logged with its source and tracked until it is resolved or reported as a limitation. ### Figures and answers that conflict The management presentation, the board pack, system exports, and replies in the Q&A log give different figures for the same headcount, volumes, or sites. Each version is cited, so the team can see which one the records support. ### Contract terms the summary leaves out Customer and supplier contracts contain change-of-control, exclusivity, or termination clauses the contract summary omits. Each is linked to the page it sits on, for counsel to assess. ### Processes that run differently than described The process narrative describes one approval path. Email and system records show another, with steps done by hand and approvals given after the work was done. Each difference is logged against the narrative. ### Work that rests on one person Email and system records show one person who answers every approval, runs the reconciliations, or holds the main customer contacts. Each dependency is documented with its records, so advisers can cite it in the report. ### Technology that differs from the inventory Systems listed as current that are out of vendor support, license counts that do not match invoices, and integrations that turn out to be manual exports between spreadsheets. ### Requests that never got an answer Information requests with no reply, empty folders, and periods the data room does not cover, each listed against the conclusion it affects, so advisers can chase it or state the limitation. [Approach] ## 5 steps from question to decision The work follows the engagement: scope first, then reading, testing, and exceptions, with advisers deciding what the report says. Agree on scope and approved sources Read every approved document Test the operating story against the documents Track each exception until it closes Advisers conclude, write, and sign [Deliverables] ## What your team receives Working files for the advisory team, each exception tied to its page or cell. ### Exception register Every exception with its source, the claim it affects, and its status: open, resolved, or reported as a limitation, ready for the team to review and close. ### Scope and limitations schedule Every data room folder and approved source, marked read or not provided, with the requests left unanswered and the findings each gap limits, ready for the report's limitations section. ### Findings pack in your firm's template Cited findings, workflow maps, and supporting workbooks in your firm's own template, so advisers can check each point and carry it into their report. [Client decisions] The advisory team sets the scope and materiality thresholds, decides which exceptions matter, puts open questions to management, and writes and signs the report. Cerenovus reads, cites, and keeps the exception register; the conclusions are the advisers' own. [Related work] ### Operational Due Diligence ### Deal Teams & Investment Committees ### Consulting & Advisory [Operating analysis on demand] ## Sign the report knowing what was read Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/who-we-serve/corporate-development-integration-teams/ # Corporate Development & Integration Teams Test every synergy before you build the integration plan around it. [Designed for] Corporate development leaders, integration management offices, and executives at the acquiring company who own the synergy case and the integration that has to deliver it. [Overview] A synergy case is usually built from management presentations and summary financials, and the integration plan inherits its assumptions. Cerenovus reads both companies' approved records (the data room before close, working systems after), rebuilds each synergy from the work behind it, and traces what each one depends on. Your team sets the order of the integration from evidence. [On this page] - Questions this team brings - What Cerenovus typically finds - 5 steps from question to decision - What your team receives [Questions] ## Questions this team brings The questions acquirers bring when synergies promised to the board have to become a working integration plan. Which synergies hold up against the records, and which rest on unchecked assumptions? Which systems should the combined company keep, and what must move before each cutover? Whom must the combined company retain for the synergy case to hold? Which savings can start in year one, and which wait on another workstream? [Findings] ## What Cerenovus typically finds When a synergy case meets the working records, the same patterns tend to appear. Each one changes what the integration plan should do first. ### The same capacity counted twice Freed capacity can appear in two synergy lines, once under finance consolidation and again under shared services. Cerenovus traces each line to the work and people behind it, so overlaps surface before targets are set. ### Cross-sell targets who already buy Cross-sell targets can count customers who already buy from both companies, listed under different names in two CRMs. Cerenovus matches the records, so the revenue case counts only accounts new to one side. ### Vendor contracts that set the timing Purchasing savings may assume combined volumes from day one, while notice periods, minimum commitments, and renewal dates in each company's contracts push them later. Cerenovus reads the contracts and dates each saving to when it can start. ### Savings timed ahead of dependencies The deal model may count single-close savings from the first quarter, though one close cannot start until the two charts of accounts map. Cerenovus traces these links, so synergy timing follows the order the integration can run. ### Parallel running left out The case may count system savings from cutover day while both teams run old and new systems side by side for months. Cerenovus sizes that overlap from tickets, hours, and vendor contracts, so savings start when the old system stops. ### People the case depends on Cross-sell revenue may rest on one account manager who handles most contact with the largest shared customers. Cerenovus flags people a synergy or workstream relies on, so retention terms run past the date their work moves. [Approach] ## 5 steps from question to decision Each engagement starts from the deal model your team already has and ends with evidence your integration office can sequence. Allow about one week from read-only access to ranked findings. Load the synergy case and integration questions Connect read-only to each company's approved sources Rebuild each synergy from named inputs Trace dependencies, systems, and critical people Your team sets the workstream order [Deliverables] ## What your team receives Every deliverable links back to its sources, so integration leads can check a number before it goes into a board update or a workstream charter. ### Tested synergy register Each synergy marked supported, partly supported, or not supported, rebuilt from named inputs such as volumes, hours, headcount, and cost, with ranges, stated assumptions, and gaps declared. ### Integration sequence and cutover plan The dependencies between workstreams found in the records, the work each retiring system still carries, and the earliest date each synergy can start. ### Retention and dependency list The people each synergy and workstream relies on, the customers, systems, or knowledge they hold, and how long the integration needs them. [Client decisions] Corporate development and integration leaders decide which synergies to pursue, which systems to keep, whom to retain, and the order of the work. Cerenovus tests the case and cites the records; it does not run the integration. [Related work] ### Post-Merger Integration Analysis ### Operational Due Diligence ### Organizational Alignment Diagnostic [Operating analysis on demand] ## Build the integration plan on tested synergies Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/trust-and-security/ [Trust] # Trust and security Cerenovus works with some of the most sensitive information a company holds, and treats its protection as the first priority. Every review is designed so that the client stays in control of its data, from the first connection to the final deletion. [Trust Center] See every security control in the Cerenovus Trust Center, or email security@cerenovus.ai for a security review. [Security concept] ## Six commitments behind every review Each commitment describes how Cerenovus works, and the client agreement sets the exact terms of each engagement. ### You decide what Cerenovus reads Cerenovus reads only the sources the client approves. The client can limit any source to a channel, folder, or field, leave out any mailbox, team, or system, and turn on automatic filters that remove sensitive files and email. Scope agreed with management before any agreement is signed ### Nothing is ever written back Every connection is read-only. Cerenovus does not write to, change, or send from client systems, and setup needs no network or firewall changes. Read-only permissions approved by the client's IT contact ### Each client's data stays separate Each client gets its own private cloud machine behind a firewall, and no two clients share an environment. Clients with stricter rules can run Cerenovus in their own cloud or on their own servers. One private cloud machine per client ### Never used to train AI models Model providers process data under zero-data-retention agreements and never keep it. Client data is never used to train any model. Clients can also run local models on their own infrastructure. Zero-data-retention agreements with Anthropic and OpenAI ### Kept only as long as the engagement Data stays only for the length of the engagement and is securely deleted when it ends, or at any point on request. A cold-storage backup is kept only if the client asks for one. Formal retention and disposal procedures ### Findings about systems, not people Cerenovus studies how work moves between teams. Findings describe processes, roles, boundaries, incentives, and systems, never the performance of named individuals. Staff review only a minimal amount of underlying data directly. Final results checked by hand for quality [Data lifecycle] ## What happens to client data, from agreement to deletion Client data enters a dedicated, read-only environment, stays there while Cerenovus works, and is deleted when the engagement ends. ### Agree Management and Cerenovus agree the scope. Cerenovus signs the client's NDA and a data processing agreement before any data is shared. ### Connect The client's IT contact approves each read-only connection. Sign-in runs through Microsoft Entra ID. ### Analyze Analysis runs on the client's dedicated machine. Data is encrypted in transit, and model providers keep nothing. ### Deliver Staff check the final results for quality. Each finding links to the record behind it. ### Delete Data is securely deleted at the end of the engagement, or earlier on request. [Security controls] ## How the environment is protected Cerenovus runs its security program on a defined set of controls, grouped below by area. Each one is listed in the Cerenovus Trust Center. ### Infrastructure - Network firewalls configured against unauthorized access - Intrusion detection with continuous monitoring - Central log management - Infrastructure monitoring with threshold alerts - Hardening standards reviewed at least once a year ### Access - Privileged access to keys, production systems, databases, and firewalls limited to staff with a business need - Unique credentials or keys for every system, application, and production sign-in - Sign-in through Microsoft Entra ID - Passwords configured according to a written policy ### Data - Data encrypted in transit over public networks - Data classification policy - Formal retention and disposal procedures - Certificate of destruction for every device destroyed ### Secure development - Changes reviewed, tested, and approved before production - Only authorized staff can deploy to production - Formal development life cycle - Documented vulnerability management and system monitoring ### Resilience and response - Documented security and privacy incident response - Incidents logged, tracked, resolved, and communicated to affected parties - Business continuity and disaster recovery plans - Control self-assessments at least once a year ### Governance and risk - Risk assessments at least once a year, including fraud risk - Documented risk management program with mitigation plans - Security policies reviewed at least once a year - Security roles and responsibilities formally assigned - Vendor management with an annual review of critical vendors [Compliance and assurance] ## Where Cerenovus stands today Cerenovus reports certification work as in progress until each audit is complete. [Questions] ## Common questions from security teams Review levels, setup steps, and hosting options are described on How it works. ### Who at Cerenovus can see client data? Analysis runs on the client's dedicated machine. Cerenovus staff review the final results by hand for quality, and only a minimal amount of underlying data is reviewed directly. Privileged access is limited to authorized staff with a business need. ### Can Cerenovus run in our own cloud or on our servers? Yes. The standard setup is a private Cerenovus cloud machine for each client, which is the fastest start. Cerenovus can also run inside the client's own cloud account or on its own servers, with more setup work. ### What happens if there is a security incident? Cerenovus has documented security and privacy incident response policies. Incidents are logged, tracked, resolved, and communicated to affected parties according to those policies. ### How much work is setup for our IT team? Setup needs at least one IT contact and a call with Cerenovus, and usually one to four hours of client IT time, depending on how many sources are connected. No network or firewall changes are needed. ### How do we start a security review? Email security@cerenovus.ai. The full list of controls is published in the Cerenovus Trust Center, and the client agreement sets the exact scope and terms of each engagement. Last updated October 2026 · Security contact: security@cerenovus.ai · To report a security concern, email the same address. [Operating analysis on demand] ## Put company-wide analysis behind your next decision. Cerenovus reads approved company data through read-only access and ranks what it finds by value. --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/book-demo/ [Book a demo] # Book a scan of your company See what a Cerenovus scan finds inside a company: the work done by hand, the teams pulling against each other, the bottlenecks, and what each one is worth. Then decide which company, team, or process to scan first, and which systems Cerenovus would read. [What the session covers] ### See a scan Walk through a scan of a real company's records, from the systems read to the ranked findings. ### Check a finding Open the documents, records, and calculations behind one finding. ### Plan your scan If Cerenovus fits, agree what to scan first, which systems it reads, and the deliverables your team needs. Email founders@cerenovus.ai --- URL: https://www.cerenovus.ai/careers/ [Careers] # Build software that analyzes company data Cerenovus reads financial and operating data, tests set questions, and ranks what it finds. Engineers and designers work on applied AI, data systems, and the screens clients use to review findings. Cerenovus has no posted vacancies. Send an introduction to careers@cerenovus.ai. ### Take a product problem through release Build and release changes to how Cerenovus analyzes company data. ### Build analysis people can check Build reliable analysis with sources and calculations that users can inspect. ### Work in small teams Work in a small team on data systems and how clients review findings.