How to Review AI-Generated EBITDA Adjustments

No. Treat it as a proposed analysis, not a financial conclusion. The TS team should reconcile the amount to source records, examine the normalization rationale, test recurrence and check for double counting before including it in a quality-of-earnings (QoE) bridge.

Solenor supports source-linked draft analysis. A citation makes an assertion easier to inspect; it does not guarantee that the source is accurate or that the accounting interpretation is appropriate.

Document the starting EBITDA definition and its reconciliation to the accounts. Explain each adjustment separately, including period, entity, currency, direction and reason. Adjusted EBITDA is not a substitute for the underlying accounts, and normalization judgments can differ between buyer and seller.

Separate historical normalization from future standalone costs, synergies and one-off separation expenditure. The purpose of the analysis determines whether an item belongs in the bridge or in a separate schedule.

For every proposed adjustment, inspect the invoice or agreement, ledger posting and management explanation. Recalculate the amount from the underlying working paper rather than relying on the generated narrative.

Suppose management proposes €1.40M of exceptional advisory costs. A reviewed fictional example retains €1.24M of separation-related fees and excludes €160k of recurring work. The subtraction is straightforward; the classification requires evidence.

Inspect supplier scope and invoice dates, reconcile the ledger, and assess whether replacement services will recur after closing. Document why the retained costs are exceptional. These figures are illustrative, not a client result or a promised benefit.

Keep the original proposal, source versions, calculation, challenged assumptions and final reviewer decision. If evidence is incomplete, flag the uncertainty rather than turning a plausible answer into a definitive claim.

Financial and accounting conclusions remain the responsibility of qualified engagement professionals. The general AI-risk reference below provides governance context; it is not an accounting standard or an endorsement of Solenor.