Ermetis
What it reads from All samples

A sample built on fictional content. Whitlow Ferris Partners is not a real firm and this reflects no real engagement.

The firm’s numbers arrive Monday morning. Watch each one show its record.

Whitlow Ferris Partners is a fictional management consulting firm working for private-equity portfolio companies. It runs Microsoft 365, BigTime, and HubSpot; its method and positions are organized and approved. Every number here is read from BigTime or HubSpot, and anything past a threshold names its owner. Each step below is the screen a real person would be looking at.

What it is worth

The value here is the time it takes to assemble the Monday picture by hand from BigTime, HubSpot, and the partners’ inboxes, and how often a number gets checked before anyone acts on it. The diagnosis measured proposal development, not this workflow, so it carries no number.

7:00The brief was computed Sunday night and sent at 7:00, before anyone was in. Before this, Carla pulled the BigTime dashboards on Monday morning and the pipeline came from HubSpot and the partners’ inboxes, so the partners read the firm-level picture on Tuesday. The button opens the full brief.

WFFirm brief · Sep 21 +
‹ › ↻🔒whitlowferris.sharepoint.com/sites/brief/2026-09-21
SharePointSearch this site
WFP Brief

Week of September 21

computed Sunday 11:40 PM · from BigTime and HubSpot · BR-1 and UT-1 definitions
MeasureThis weekDefinitionTaken from, click to open
Utilization by person, trailing four weeks6 of 16 under targetUT-1 · billable hours over 1,800 target hours
Weighted pipeline$2.6M · 9 opportunitiesBR-1 · HubSpot stage weights
Realization by engagement4 running · 1 over planUT-1 · fees billed over standard-rate value of hours
Unbilled work in progress$96,000BR-1 · flagged over $120,000
Receivables by age$1.14M · $64,000 past 45 daysBR-1
Bench, next four weeks2 unassigned, week of Oct 5BR-1

Exceptions · past a threshold, each with its owner

⚑ RobENG-2634 at Tolland Wire Products is eleven percent over budget on hours at week two. All of it sits in a data-cleanup line that was not scoped. Opened in the next tab.
⚑ PriyaJordan Meeks and Owen Gallagher are under fifty percent utilization and have nothing assigned in the week of October 5. Both are on the BigTime report in the next step.
⚑ CarlaOne Larkspur Ridge invoice is fifty-one days old: $64,000 to Midland Packaging Group on ENG-2598, dated August 1. The invoice and the contact history are attached.

7:05This is the full brief on the firm’s own SharePoint. Every number is read from BigTime or HubSpot under the BR-1 and UT-1 definitions, and clicking it opens the record it came from. The exceptions are threshold rules, and each one names its owner.

7:08These are the two reports the brief’s chips open, in the systems that keep them. Nothing in the brief is retyped from either one: the brief reads the same records these reports show, under the BR-1 and UT-1 definitions, and the flags on the BigTime rows are the same threshold rules that named Priya on the brief.

WFENG-2634 · hours against plan +
‹ › ↻🔒whitlowferris.sharepoint.com/sites/brief/2026-09-21/ENG-2634
SharePointSearch this site
WFP Brief

Tolland Wire Products · ENG-2634 · hours against plan, week two

hours by module from BigTime · plan from the engagement budget · scoping record from the memory
ModulePlanned hours, to week twoCharged 
Data request and kickoff4041on plan
Financial and working-capital baseline6059on plan
Throughput and scheduling walk4038on plan
Procurement spend analysis6062on plan
Data cleanup · not in the scope022the overrun is all here
Total200222eleven percent over
Scoping record · ENG-2634 · from the memory

Scoped by Rob Askew, August 2026, from the assumptions tab

Pricing workbook › Assumptions · five weeks, two and a half FTE, fixed fee $161,000 · no data-readiness week

ACC-TOLL records that Tolland closes its books in about twenty days. SC-4 adds a data-readiness week when a company does not close within ten business days of month end. This scope has none, and the twenty-two hours in the cleanup line are that week, charged against a budget that did not include it.

SC-4 · owner Ellen Marchetti · the reason written next to it: the overruns since 2024 have come from data cleanup nobody scoped.
For Rob to decide · the brief chooses none of these
1Hold the scope and absorb the hours. If the overrun holds to the end, realization on ENG-2634 lands near ninety percent of what was scoped.
2Take a change order for a data-readiness week to Dan Kowalczyk at Larkspur Ridge, which is how SC-4 would have scoped it.
3Narrow the procurement module and keep the fee and the five weeks where they are.
Ellen’s note to Rob · 7:20 · on the ENG-2634 record

“Rob, this is the SC-4 week. Tolland closes in twenty days and there’s no readiness week in the scope. Let’s talk before you call Dan. 8:30?”

7:20This is what the ENG-2634 exception opens into. The comparison is arithmetic over BigTime’s hours by module, and the scoping record and SC-4 sit beside it. The brief lists what Rob could do and chooses none of it. Ellen’s note is the only judgment on the page, and it went onto the engagement record where the debrief will find it.

Under the hood· what ran, and where everything lives · drawn by Ermetis, not an app─  ▢  ✕
WHERE IT PULLS FROM BigTimehours · budgets · invoices · via its API HubSpotdeals · stage weights · via its API The definitionsBR-1 and UT-1, each with an owner WFP’S MICROSOFT 365 TENANT Plain calculationsums and comparisons, Sunday night Threshold rules runexceptions found, owners attached The narrative linesthe model’s only job, and it cites The brief page assembledevery number linked to its record Outlook · Monday 7:00to Ellen and the owners The owners decideRob, Priya, Carla RecordedEllen’s note, on ENG-2634 what the week teaches goes back into the memory

What runs it

The brief runs in the firm’s own Microsoft 365 tenant, reading BigTime and HubSpot through their APIs. Nothing about this workflow leaves their environment.
Code adds; the model narrates. Every number comes straight from BigTime or HubSpot under the BR-1 and UT-1 definitions, which Carla Stimson owns. Plain code sums it, compares it against the targets and the thresholds, and links it. There is no model arithmetic anywhere in the brief. The language model writes only the sentences around the numbers, and every sentence cites the number it describes.
The thresholds are plain code, and the memory names the owner. Hours more than ten percent over plan go to the engagement partner on the engagement record. Utilization under fifty percent with nothing assigned in the next four weeks goes to Priya Raman, who owns staffing under ST-5. An invoice past forty-five days, or work in progress over $120,000, goes to Carla Stimson, who owns BR-1. A person decides; the brief does not.

The honest caveat

This brief exists because the firm’s systems hold the records. Where a firm’s systems cannot support a number, the brief says so and leaves the line out. It does not estimate the number. This is not a product we would sell to a firm whose records cannot back it, and WFP’s can.

What gets recorded

Every brief, exception, and owner decision is logged, and a note goes onto the record it concerns. Ellen’s note is on ENG-2634, beside the scoping record it refers to, where the debrief for that engagement will find it.

 This is the whole machine. The records stay in BigTime and HubSpot, code does the adding and the comparing under definitions Carla owns, the model writes only the sentences, and the exceptions land with the people who own them.

What this took, in this fictional world

The brief computed itself Sunday night and was read before 7:30 Monday. Rob had the Tolland hours by module and the scoping record in front of him before his 8:30 with Ellen, Priya had the week of October 5 in front of her two weeks early, and Carla called Midland’s accounts payable that morning. Before the system, Carla pulled the BigTime dashboards on Monday and the pipeline came from HubSpot and the partners’ inboxes, so the picture was ready on Tuesday and an exception was found when somebody happened to look for it.

The same workflow, elsewhere

At a law firm, this is hours by timekeeper, unbilled work in progress by matter, realization against standard rates, and receivables by age, from the practice management system. At a marketing agency, it is utilization, retainer hours used against hours sold, and the receivables aging, from the agency’s time and billing system. The pattern is the same: arithmetic over the firm’s own records, every number linked, exceptions owned.