The Source Changed. Which AI Work Is Now Stale?
A practical design for tracing late-arriving evidence into findings, reviews, models, and transaction deliverables.
- Keep material claims connected to their evidence.
- Assign review responsibilities before work begins.
- Evaluate the complete IC preparation and review process.
A revised source can affect an IC memo even after the first review. Treat each material update as a review question: what changed, which claims depend on it, and who needs to approve a revision?
Identify the change
Keep the prior and revised source distinguishable. Record the document, version, reporting period and date received. Confirm whether the new file replaces earlier evidence or adds context.
Review affected claims
Compare the memo’s cited statements with the new source. A different number may reflect a changed period, currency, scope or accounting definition. Resolve those differences before calling it a contradiction.
Assign a reviewer to each material question. Record whether the claim remains supported, needs revision or should be removed. An unchanged claim can still require confirmation when its supporting source is replaced.
Recheck the deliverable
Review the memo sections, tables and supporting work that depend on the changed evidence. Confirm the version used for the final review and retain unresolved questions with their owners.
When included in your Underlying pilot, affected memo claims can be proposed for human review. Your team decides which revisions to accept; changes are not automatically applied across every tool.
Include an update in your pilot
Use one realistic revised source during evaluation. Measure the additional analyst and senior-review effort, inspect the citations and confirm that the revised memo is suitable for your IC process.
Put this into practice
Evaluate one authorized deal pack, your firm’s memo format, and a named analyst and senior reviewer.