Arithmetic integrity
Does the model foot, cross-foot, and keep circularities intentional?
Financial data annotation
Finance AI fails in ways that look numerically tidy. A model can produce a formatted LBO, a clean variance bridge, or a fluent equity note and still be wrong in a way only a practitioner notices.
We are not a freelancer marketplace or traditional staffing company.
Financial data annotation is professional review or labeling of models, memos, filings, and related artifacts so an AI system can be trained or evaluated against a finance-practitioner standard. Fluent numbers are not enough; the work asks whether the answer would survive an internal review.
Subtle numerical and domain errors often appear plausible to non-experts. A cash-flow item can be counted twice. A non-recurring item can be treated as run-rate. A comparable set can be silently biased. A covenant definition can be quoted from the wrong document. The spreadsheet still calculates. The narrative still reads like research.
General annotators score whether the answer looks like finance. Finance professionals score whether the answer would survive an internal review meeting.
Example profiles include investment bankers, private equity professionals, financial analysts, accountants, CPAs, equity research professionals, and risk professionals. Profiles are assembled against the brief.
Does the model foot, cross-foot, and keep circularities intentional?
Are classifications and adjustments consistent with the stated standard?
Do the conclusions follow from the numbers, or were the numbers dressed around a story?
Share the profession, specialty, experience, location, headcount, hours, duration, and project description. We assemble the expert capacity.