Source Reconciliation
The evidence that governs the question, with conflicting inputs left visible.
Discuss this workflowSee credit pressure before the next manual review.
Bring agreements, positions, and changing company evidence into the same review. See the pressure, the definition behind it, and the record your team needs to act on.
Request a demo
Credit, with its context intact
A signal is only useful when you can explain it.
A new figure can mean a change in performance, a change in definition, or a mismatch between sources. Hermetica keeps those questions separate so the team can understand what deserves attention.
01 / Governing definitions
Start with the definition that governs the question.
Reconcile credit agreements, covenant definitions, and company reporting with the position record. Keep different measures visible rather than blending them into a single, apparently consistent answer.
Explore Source ReconciliationProject Rowan / reporting review
Which earnings measure applies?
- Company reporting
- €31.2mReported EBITDA · FY2025
- Agreement basis
- €27.8mCovenant EBITDA · FY2025
For the team’s review
For the covenant question, review the agreement definition and its supporting calculation.
Inspect the source
Rowan credit agreement
Schedule 4 · defined financial measures
- Period
- FY2025 test period
- Context
- Covenant EBITDA; not interchangeable with reported EBITDA
The covenant measure excludes the adjustments identified in Schedule 4. Company reporting uses a different adjustment scope. Confirm the calculation against the full agreement.
02 / Changing pressure
Bring the exception to review with its evidence attached.
Connect fresh company reporting, rating actions, and position data to the original credit case. See what changed, which assumptions are under pressure, and which sources need a closer look.
Explore Portfolio MonitoringProject Rowan / quarterly review
What moved since the last review?
- Prior review
- 3.9×Net leverage · Q3 2025 LTM
- Current review
- 4.6×Net leverage · Q4 2025 LTM
- Change
- +0.7×Review the earnings and debt bridge
For the team’s review
Leverage increased. This is a review signal, not a covenant-breach determination.
Inspect the source
Rowan monitoring pack
Page 6 · leverage bridge
- Period
- Q3–Q4 2025, last twelve months
- Context
- Net leverage on the monitoring pack’s stated basis
The reported leverage increase reflects lower earnings and a higher net-debt balance. Reconcile both inputs and the relevant covenant definition before drawing a conclusion.
03 / Review & follow-through
Keep the decision connected to what happened next.
Recover the assumptions and debate behind a prior credit decision. Carry the review, unresolved questions, and later evidence into the next monitoring cycle without rewriting what the team knew at the time.
Explore Institutional MemoryProject Rowan / review record
What did the team ask to see next?
- October
- Working-capital pressure raisedCommittee note · open question
- November
- Monthly cash bridge requestedReview decision · evidence to follow
- January
- New cash bridge receivedCompany reporting · ready for review
For the team’s review
The new evidence arrives beside the original concern and the team’s prior decision.
Inspect the source
Rowan credit-review minutes
Item 3 · working capital
- Period
- October 2025–January 2026
- Context
- Recorded review history; no automatic credit action
The committee requested a monthly cash bridge before revisiting the working-capital assumption. The January submission should be reviewed against that request.
One connected system
From changing evidence to a reviewable credit case.
Portfolio Monitoring
Changing evidence in view, with the original investment case still attached.
Discuss this workflowInstitutional Memory
Prior assumptions, decisions, and outcomes carried into the next review.
Discuss this workflowDoes an exception mean a covenant has been breached?
No. An exception identifies something for review. The team must establish the governing agreement, definition, period, and calculation before reaching a covenant or credit conclusion.
What happens when two credit sources disagree?
The conflict remains visible. Hermetica connects the source, definition, and period to the question so the team can inspect which evidence governs and why, rather than receiving an unexplained blended figure.
Where would we start?
Choose one recurring credit-review task and describe the reporting, position data, and agreements involved at a high level. We can scope the workflow and deployment requirements together. Do not include confidential borrower materials in the request form.
A session around your work
Bring one credit-review question into focus.
A conflicting definition, a changing credit, or an exception to investigate. We’ll build the session around the review your team needs to make.
Request a demo30 minutes. Tailored to your workflow.