Solenor
Solenor

Transaction Services use case

AI for Carve-Out and TSA Analysis

Map shared services, review transition service agreements and prepare source-linked standalone assumptions and TSA schedules for carve-out engagements.

Separate the perimeter before modeling the transition

A carve-out requires a defensible view of what transfers, what remains shared and what the new business needs to operate independently. Central allocations, shared ERP access and group contracts can obscure the standalone cost base.

Solenor supports a connected review of scope, contracts and management discussions so TS teams can prepare documented assumptions. The aim is to make the separation analysis easier to challenge, not to automate transaction judgment.

  • Entities, assets and personnel in scope
  • Shared IT, payroll, HR and legal services
  • Contract dependencies and exit terms
  • Standalone costs and seller-retained overhead

Build a source-linked TSA schedule

Collect the service catalog, draft transition agreements, pricing schedules and operational assumptions. Review duration, extension provisions, exit conditions and the allocation of responsibilities for each service.

Compare contract wording with management explanations and the separation plan. Prepare a draft schedule that distinguishes contractual terms from estimates and open questions. Link the retained assumptions to the supporting source.

  • Service and responsible parties
  • Monthly or annual pricing basis
  • Duration, extensions and termination
  • Evidence, assumptions and unresolved items

Illustrative example: shared SAP infrastructure

In the fictional Helios demonstration, shared SAP infrastructure requires a minimum 12-month TSA at an estimated €45k per month. The simple annualized amount is €540k before considering additional services, taxes, changes in scope or exit costs. This example is not a customer case study.

Before using a real estimate, verify the agreement and service perimeter, implementation timetable, pricing adjustments and whether migration capex is separate from run-rate costs. Do not assume the public example describes your deployment or transaction.

Keep stranded costs distinct from NewCo costs

Seller-retained overhead, one-off separation expenditure and recurring standalone costs serve different analytical purposes. Keep them separately identified to avoid double counting or misrepresenting the post-closing cost base.

The team should validate allocation methods, assumptions about replacement services and the timing of cost removal. Source-linked draft Excel schedules, Word notes and PowerPoint summaries support that review; they do not replace legal review of the TSA or financial sign-off.

Scope implementation with the founding team

Discuss the engagement perimeter, source permissions, service catalog and expected outputs with the TS partner and AI specialist behind Solenor. A first pilot can focus on a defined set of shared-service agreements rather than the entire transaction.

Confirm the selected connectors, hosting boundary and review process before sharing confidential contracts. Support, features and deployment arrangements are agreed for your organization rather than assumed from the showcase.

References and scope

Solenor editorial methodology. These sources provide AI governance context and describe our practices; they do not certify the product or financial conclusions. Published October 7, 2026.

Founder-led implementation

Scope your first use case with the team

Discuss sources, review standards and your organization's requirements with the founders.