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.

Marketing asks for a LinkedIn post. Watch it get drafted from four engagements with no client named.

Whitlow Ferris Partners is a fictional management consulting firm that works for private-equity portfolio companies. It runs on Microsoft 365, its engagement records and debrief notes live on SharePoint, and its method and positions have been organized and approved. The thought-piece drafter writes a post from the pattern across closed engagements, lists the engagements it drew on for the approving partner, and scans the draft against every client name, sponsor name, person, and figure in those records before a partner reads it. Each step below is the screen a real person would be looking at.

What it is worth

The value in this workflow is the partner time it takes to turn what the firm has seen into something it can publish, and whether a client detail ever reaches a post. We would measure both on your own marketing. The diagnosis measured proposal development and not this workflow, so we do not put a number on it.

10:20Nate runs the posting calendar and has no engagement material of his own. The drafter watches this channel from inside the firm’s Microsoft 365 tenant. It found four closed engagements on the topic in the Engagements library, read their final readouts and debrief notes, and drafted. Half an hour later the card is in the channel. Nobody at the firm has written anything yet.

WMMarketing · TP-2026-14 +
‹ › ↻🔒whitlowferris.sharepoint.com/sites/marketing/drafts/TP-2026-14
SharePointSearch this site
WFP Marketing

TP-2026-14 · LinkedIn post · under Marcus Delgado’s name

For Marcusdrafted Friday 10:52 · Tuesday slot
Rule applied: CL-3 · Client confidentiality in marketing · three or more engagements, no client, sponsor, or identifiable figure, partner approval before posting · owner Marcus Delgado
The draft · 238 words · Marcus’s voice, from his past posts and the debrief callsversion 1

Over the past few years we’ve run working-capital diagnostics at a number of founder-led manufacturers, and the findings have started to repeat. The numbers are different every time. The reasons behind them mostly aren’t. Three come up on nearly every one.

Inventory that nobody counts on the cadence the ERP assumes. The system expects a cycle count every quarter, the floor does a full count once a year if that, and the on-hand figure the planner works from is wrong in a way nobody corrects. At one company a mid-seven-figure inventory balance was sitting against a count that was fourteen months old.

Payment terms that were negotiated once and never revisited. The terms with the largest suppliers were set when the company was a fraction of its current size and had little to bargain with. It has plenty now, and nobody has gone back to ask.

Receivables aging that the owner reads as customer loyalty. The accounts that pay at 75 days are the customers the founder has known for twenty years, and pressing them feels like a betrayal. In our experience they pay at 45 when asked, and the relationship survives.

None of this is a failing of the people running these companies. It is what happens when a company outgrows the habits it was built on. The diagnostic puts a number on it so the owner and the sponsor can decide what to do about it.

Drew on · listed for the approving partner, never in the post

EngagementWhat it wasWhat it gave the draftRecord, click to open
ENG-2611 · 2026Working-capital and procurement diagnostic, specialty fastener manufacturerThe inventory-count finding and the figure that was generalized
ENG-2598 · 2026Pricing diagnostic, packaging distributorThe payment-terms finding only
ENG-2487 · 2024Working-capital diagnostic, manufacturerThe receivables finding; the terms finding a second time
ENG-2412 · 2023Working-capital diagnostic, manufacturerThe inventory-count finding a second time; the receivables finding a second time
Four engagements. CL-3 asks for three or more, so the post describes a pattern across the firm’s engagements.

Confidentiality check · plain code, run against the four engagement records

✓ PassedClient names: the draft was scanned against every portfolio-company name in the four records and every short form of them. None appears.
✓ PassedSponsor names: scanned against every sponsor and every sponsor contact in the four records. None appears.
✓ PassedPeople: scanned against every owner, executive, and WFP team member in the four records. None appears.
✓ PassedThree or more engagements: four, all closed, per CL-3.
⚑ For MarcusOne figure was generalized. The first draft read “$3.1M of inventory,” which is the figure on ENG-2611’s readout and would identify the client to anyone who knows it. The software changed it to “a mid-seven-figure inventory balance” and shows the change. The aggregation, and the generalized figure, wait for Marcus.

10:52This is the page the Teams button opens, on the firm’s own SharePoint. The post is on the left as Marcus will read it; the engagements it drew on are listed under it and go nowhere else. The scan for names and figures is code, not a model’s opinion, and the one thing it changed is shown. Click any record to see what the draft took from it. Nothing posts from this screen.

WMMarketing · TP-2026-14 +
‹ › ↻🔒whitlowferris.sharepoint.com/sites/marketing/drafts/TP-2026-14
SharePointSearch this site
WFP Marketing

TP-2026-14 · LinkedIn post · under Marcus Delgado’s name

In reviewMarcus Delgado · Monday 8:50
Marcus’s rewrite, on the closing line

It is what happens when a company outgrows the habits it was built on. It’s what happens when the business gets big before anyone changes how it runs. His note, saved with the line: “Closer to how I say it on the calls.”

Marcus’s removal, in the inventory paragraph

At one company a mid-seven-figure inventory balance was sitting against a count that was fourteen months oldon a count that was more than a year old. His note: “Fourteen months is Beltline’s number and Dan would know it. The point holds without it.”

AGGREGATION · CONFIRMEDMarcus read the four engagements the draft drew on, agreed that the three findings appear in at least two each, and kept the generalized figure as the software wrote it.
CL-3 · METFour engagements, no client, sponsor, person, or identifiable figure after his removal, and his approval on the version that posts. The rule he owns is the gate, and the check cites it.
Both of his marks are saved with the post. The removed phrase is recorded against ENG-2611 as too specific to publish, so a later draft that reaches for the Beltline inventory finding does not use it. The generalized figure stays as the approved form for that finding.
✓ Approved by Marcus Delgado, 9:04. Scheduled for Tuesday, September 22, 8:00, under his name. The post, his two marks, the four engagements it drew on, and the check result are filed together as one record.

8:50Same screen, Marcus’s half of it, first thing Monday. He rewrites one sentence, removes one phrase that pointed at one client, confirms the aggregation, and approves. The software drafted and checked; the partner decided what the firm says in public. That order never reverses.

Tue 8:00The post went out under Marcus’s name in the slot Nate asked for, with his closing line and without the phrase he removed. The four engagements behind it are on the firm’s SharePoint, filed with the post, and nowhere in it. The interface is drawn generically; it stands for whichever network the firm posts to.

Under the hood· what ran, and where everything lives · drawn by Ermetis, not an app─  ▢  ✕
WHERE IT PULLS FROM Engagements libraryfinal readouts · closed engagements Debrief notesDB-2598 · and earlier debriefs The approved rulesCL-3 · owner Marcus Delgado THE FIRM’S MICROSOFT 365 TENANT Teams · the request arrivesMarketing channel watched The thought-piece drafterthe model drafts, with the firm’s permissions Plain-code checksnames · sponsors · people · figures · three or more The draft page, for Marcuswith the engagements it drew on listed Marcus approveshis edits saved with the post The post goes outunder his name, in the slot The kept recordthe post, its sources, the check the post and what it drew on go back into the memory

What runs it

The thought-piece drafter is software configured in the firm’s own Microsoft 365 tenant. It reads the Engagements library, the debrief notes, and the approved rules under the permissions the firm already set. Nothing leaves the tenant until a partner approves it.
The model drafts; code checks. A language model writes the post from the pattern across the engagements, in the voice of the partner it is for. The scan for client names, sponsor names, people, and figures runs as plain code against the engagement records, so a name is either absent or a person looks at it.

The gate

CL-3 is the gate, and it has an owner. Three or more closed engagements, no client, sponsor, or identifiable figure, and a partner’s approval before posting. The check cites the rule, the page names Marcus Delgado as its owner, and the post does not schedule until he approves.

What gets recorded

The post, the engagements it drew on, the check result, Marcus’s two marks, and his approval are filed as one record, with who decided and when. The removed phrase is marked against ENG-2611 as too specific to publish, so the firm’s next draft on the topic starts from what Marcus approved.

 This is the whole machine. The engagement records where they already were, one piece of software inside the tenant, a scan that is code, one page where a partner decides, and a post that is filed with everything behind it.

What this took, in this fictional world

One request in a Teams channel on a Friday morning. The software read four closed engagements and had the draft and its check in the channel about half an hour later. Marcus spent part of Monday morning on it: one sentence rewritten, one phrase removed, the aggregation confirmed, and the approval. Before the software, a post like this waited for a partner to have a free afternoon, and most of the slots were filled with something else.

The same workflow, elsewhere

At a law firm, this is the client alert drawn from matters the firm has handled, checked against every client and matter name before a partner approves it. At an accounting firm, it is the year-end note on what the firm keeps seeing in closes, drawn from its engagements and cleared of client figures. The pattern is the same: written from the firm’s own experience, checked against its own records, and approved by the person who owns the rule.