Clarity before code.

Forward deployed engineering for investment firms

Graph brings operators and engineers into your firm to improve how work gets done. We map the process across your team, providers and systems, identify what holds it up, and build the changes with the people responsible for the result.

Discuss an operating bottleneckSee a process example

Our team brings experience raising and deploying institutional capital, running fractional CFO functions, and building companies.

01 / Where work gets stuck

The gap between systems is often a coordination problem.

Your firm already works across software, cloud data, Slack or Teams, email and spreadsheets. The work slows down when those tools and the people using them do not connect cleanly.

Waiting

The input arrives late.

A provider is waiting for supporting documents. Your team is waiting for the provider. A reporting deadline keeps moving closer.

Handoffs

The sources disagree.

A spreadsheet, a bank record and an administrator's file show different answers. The context travels through another email thread.

Ownership

The next decision is unclear.

Someone needs to resolve an exception, approve a correction and confirm it happened. A dashboard alone does not assign that responsibility.

02 / How Graph works

Improve the process.
Then build what it needs.

Discovery includes deciding whether the existing process should change. The outcome guides the technology and the scope.

Use ordinary software for clear rules, AI for bounded interpretation and evidence preparation, and people for consequential judgment.

  1. 01

    Define the outcome

    Name the operating result, its owner and the boundaries of the work. Agree how to judge a usable improvement and record the starting point.

  2. 02

    Map the full process

    Follow the work across your team, providers and systems. Find waiting time, duplicated effort, missing evidence and decisions without owners.

  3. 03

    Redesign with the owner

    Agree which steps to remove or change, what rules can handle, and where human judgment remains. Make approval and exception paths explicit.

  4. 04

    Build and evaluate

    Connect the necessary inputs and test the proposed workflow with representative cases, including late documents, conflicting records and failed actions.

  5. 05

    Operate and measure

    Put the change into use with the responsible team. Compare the result with the baseline, document operation and agree who maintains each part.

Operating context

The firm is at the center.

Investment work depends on the operating work around it. Map those connections before deciding what to change.

  • Sourcing, selection, winning and supporting connect to finance and provider responsibilities.
  • Fund accounting, reporting and portfolio data need clear sources, handoffs and owners.
  • The selected improvement should support that wider process.

Illustrative operating map. The hub shows coordination around the firm; it does not require every system to be replaced or centralized.

The investment firm at the centerSourcing, selection, winning and supporting surround a hub of finance and operating responsibilities. Fundaccounting LPreporting Compliance Capitalcalls Tax & K-1s Valuations Portfoliodata Institutionalmemory Sourcing Selection Winning Supporting Your Firm Operating context

03 / A process example

From a reconciliation email thread
to a reviewable decision.

Supporting documents arrive late and reconciliation exceptions circulate through email. The objective is to resolve those exceptions with traceable evidence so the finance owner can complete reporting.

Current path

  1. The finance team requests a statement from the source owner.
  2. The administrator waits, then compares the statement with the ledger.
  3. An unexplained difference returns to finance through email.
  4. The reviewer searches for context. Reporting waits for a decision and confirmation of the correction.

Proposed path

  1. Collect approved source documents continuously where access permits; assign follow-up for missing inputs.
  2. Use agreed rules to match records and separate unresolved items.
  3. Prepare the evidence, difference and proposed action for the designated reviewer.
  4. Record approval, execute through the authorized owner, and verify the updated record before closing the exception.
Fictional exception / REC-014

A cash movement has no matching ledger entry.

Proposed · awaiting review
Evidence
A bank statement shows the movement; the administrator's ledger export has no match. The supporting notice is missing. Keep source references and collection times with the exception.
Source ownership
The firm's finance owner supplies the bank statement and requests the notice. The administrator owns the ledger record and any approved update.
Decision needed
Request the missing notice and hold the proposed ledger correction until the movement is explained. Matching confidence is not approval to post.
Responsible reviewer
Client controller, the designated reviewer in this scenario. The controller checks the evidence and either approves the correction or returns it for more information.
1. ProposedEvidence and next action prepared. This example stops here.
2. ApprovedReviewer records a decision. No posting implied.
3. ExecutedAuthorized owner makes the agreed update.
4. VerifiedCheck the resulting record and retain evidence before closing.

One question. A clear next step.

Reconciliation · REC-014FICTIONAL EXAMPLE
Team →Why is REC-014 still open?
Bank statement + ledger export
MissingThe supporting notice.
Next stepFinance supplies it. Controller reviews.
Awaiting review · Nothing posted

Measure the whole result.

For an illustrative pilot, compare two reporting cycles before the change with two after it. Track active effort, elapsed time, exception age, rework and time to completed reporting. Record volumes, late inputs and other process changes alongside the results so the comparison does not credit automation for unrelated improvements.

The decision interface can live in an agreed tool. The essential parts are the evidence, accountable reviewer and recorded state.

04 / Operators and engineers together

We have been the allocator.
We understand the operating work.

Graph's team has raised institutional capital, invested from pre-seed to late stage, run fractional CFO functions and built venture-scale startups and our own companies. That experience connects the operating question to the engineering work.

Operating context

Finance and investing experience helps define the result, understand provider responsibilities and identify the decisions that need an owner.

Engineering delivery

Builders translate the agreed process into integrations, rules and interfaces, then evaluate the workflow against representative operating cases.

Your internal owner

We work alongside your existing team. Your process owner sets priorities, brings context and accepts the result; your authorized reviewers retain approval responsibilities.

05 / Technology that supports the work

The architecture follows
the operating need.

An existing integration and a clearer review path may be enough. Where work depends on scattered history and recurring decisions, a shared knowledge foundation may help.

The layers shown here are one possible architecture, scoped to the selected workflow. Discovery determines which parts the work needs.

Supporting capability

Central AI Memory Layer

Bring relevant history, documents and decisions into shared context when scattered information is holding the work back.

Explore the memory layer

Agree hosting, access, external processing and dependencies before implementation. Document what your firm owns, how records can be exported, and who maintains the workflow and its integrations.

InterfacesThe agreed working interface. Web dashboard · email · Slack · the chat tools you use. Ask in plain language.
↑plugins / MCP / CLI
LogicAgents and applications. Ledger · portfolio monitor · IR co-pilot · diligence · valuations · reconciliation.
↑agreed API
KnowledgeRelevant library + memory, when needed. Companies, positions, funds, LP interests, documents, cash flows, valuations, and the decisions you have already made.
↑approved collection / context preparation
RecordsAuthoritative source records. Connect the selected fund admin, bank, document and other inputs. Add a warehouse only where the workflow needs one.

From the pattern to a real stack

Interfaceswhere the team works
Claude (via MCP)ChatGPT (via MCP)Microsoft TeamsOutlookWeb Interface
Logicagents / applications
Value-Creation AgentCovenant MonitorDiligence SkillsCustom LP Reporting
Knowledgelibrary + memory
VectorDBSupermemory
Recordsdata warehouse
Apex Fund AdminExcel ModelsCascade BankMicrosoft 365iLevel

06 / The first engagement

Bring one bottleneck.
Start by making it clear.

In the scoping conversation, describe the recurring work, who depends on it and where it stalls. Together, identify the outcome worth improving and whether Graph is the right team to help.

What we can define

A process map, named responsibilities, a baseline, a focused build scope and acceptance criteria. The outputs depend on the operating problem and available evidence.

What you contribute

A process owner, representative records, access approvals, provider context and time from the people who will review and use the result.

How it keeps working

Agree documentation, team training, monitoring, support and change ownership. Decide which responsibilities stay with your team and which remain with Graph.

Our engagement offer is an embedded team on a monthly retainer for 3 months. Confirm scope, terms, timing and ongoing responsibilities together before starting.

Read an illustrative first 90 days →

07 / Questions before we start

Make the working relationship clear.

Do we need a new platform?

That depends on the process. We first assess whether existing tools and integrations can support the result, then agree any additional foundation the work needs.

Where does AI fit?

Use it where it helps the agreed workflow, such as preparing context for review. Rules, source evidence and human approval still have distinct jobs. Evaluate those choices against the operating cases.

Who approves consequential actions?

The authorized client reviewer or owner identified during design. Preparing a recommendation, approving it, executing it and verifying the result are separate steps.

How do we know it worked?

Agree the baseline and acceptance criteria before building. Measure the end-to-end result as well as effort, waiting and rework, with changes in volume and inputs recorded.

What happens to our data and the build?

Agree the deployment environment, access and any external processing. Document ownership, export options, dependencies and maintenance responsibilities as part of the engagement.

How do we set the scope?

Start with the outcome and responsible owner. Review the systems involved, available access, delivery expectations and ongoing support before agreeing the work and commercial terms.

Start with the work

Let's improve how your firm
gets work done.

Start with one recurring process and a clear outcome. We'll work through the people, decisions and systems involved.

Discuss an operating bottleneck
What is forward deployed engineering?Startup and platform delivery