launchsolo.aiMap this workflow

Business analysis

Spend the week finding meaning, not rebuilding the evidence.

A controlled analysis workflow can collect approved data, normalize it, flag changes, and prepare a cited briefing. The analyst remains responsible for interpretation, assumptions, and recommendations.

Reference workflowVendor-neutral designHuman approval required

The current pattern

The analyst is acting as middleware.

The expensive part is rarely Excel itself. It is the repeated movement of information between files, systems, messages, meetings, and a report that becomes stale as soon as it is sent.

MANUAL CYCLE

Collection consumes the analysis window.

  • Export from ERP, CRM, finance, and operational tools
  • Repair column names, dates, and missing values
  • Merge workbooks and reproduce formulas
  • Search email and Teams for explanations
  • Rewrite recurring narrative and charts
  • Answer “where did this number come from?”
CONTROLLED CYCLE

Exceptions arrive ready for judgment.

  • Approved connectors or scheduled exports feed one model
  • Validation rules expose missing and conflicting records
  • Material changes and anomalies are prioritized
  • A briefing is drafted with source and timestamp
  • Analyst adds interpretation and challenges assumptions
  • Approved output is published with an audit trail

What the system does

Four layers, each independently testable.

The architecture can be built around Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, a data warehouse, or scheduled files. The specific stack follows the existing environment.

Ingest

Excel, CSV, SharePoint, SQL, CRM, ERP, forms, and approved APIs with source ownership recorded.

Validate

Schema, freshness, completeness, reconciliation rules, and exception thresholds run before generation.

Explain

Rules calculate known metrics; AI summarizes material change and retrieves supporting context.

Approve

The analyst reviews evidence, edits conclusions, and decides what can be circulated.

Where judgment remains human

Automation prepares the decision. It does not own it.

Business significance, causality, forecast assumptions, sensitive commentary, and executive recommendations must not be inferred and published without an accountable reviewer.

Safe to automate first

Collection, normalization, recurring calculations, missing-data checks, chart refresh, source links, first-draft commentary.

Require review

Materiality, causal explanation, forecast changes, strategic recommendations, sensitive people or customer conclusions.

Do not automate blindly

Publishing unverified numbers, changing financial definitions, silently filling missing data, or treating model prose as evidence.

Proof of value

Measure before building.

A credible pilot selects one recurring report and compares the current cycle with the controlled workflow on the same source period.

Cycle timeHours from source availability to reviewed report.
Manual touchesExports, copy/paste actions, file merges, and follow-up messages.
ExceptionsMissing, conflicting, stale, and untraceable values detected before circulation.
Review qualityUnsupported statements, corrections after release, and source questions.

Pilot candidate

Bring one report your team rebuilds every week or month.

The written diagnosis will identify source access, failure points, review boundaries, and the smallest test that can prove whether automation is worth it.

Map the reporting cycle