An interactive field guide · Model 1.1

How much review time
could your team reclaim?

Build a capacity case using the hours your team spends on review, documentation and evidence preparation. Bring your numbers to a partner conversation and test the assumptions together.

Your operating reality

Start with illustrative inputs. Replace them with your own workload; all financial amounts are USD.

I work asRegistration contextContext only; no regulatory multiplier is applied.

01 / Where the hours go

Communications review · hours/monthTriage, sampling and documenting review decisions.Meeting documentation · hours/monthPreparing structured records after adviser meetings.Evidence retrieval · hours/monthSearching, linking and assembling supporting records.Exam & annual-review preparation · hours/yearIncremental preparation only; exclude work counted above.Fully loaded hourly costSalary, benefits and employer costs per hour. Use a blended rate for the people doing this work.

02 / What can actually improve?

Hypotheses to validate in a pilot. Reductions apply only to covered work that the team adopts.

Communications review reduction35%Meeting documentation reduction50%Evidence retrieval reduction45%Exam & annual-review preparation reduction30%Workload with usable evidence80%Share supported by accessible, indexed evidence. Missing channels receive no assumed benefit.Adoption of the new workflow80%Months to reach full adoptionAdditional oversight is enteredExtra oversight · hours/month per firmTotal additional checking: 2 hours/month across 1 firm(s). Charged from month one.

03 / Costs and cash reality

ComplyVault quote · total/monthEnter your actual quote. Zero means pricing has not been supplied; this is not a free plan.One-time implementation feeInternal setup · total hoursExisting archive · total/monthRetained in the cost baseline. No archive replacement saving is assumed.Confirmed tool costs retired/monthOnly non-archive costs you can actually cancel. Exclude labour already counted above. Assumed retired from month one.Released labour value realised in cash0%Keep at zero unless hours will reduce paid overtime, contractor spend or another cash expense. Apply the same share to additional labour costs.

Your first-year capacity case

101 hours

Estimated team capacity released in year one

After ramp-up, additional oversight and setup. This is staff time available for other work; cash savings depend on whether actual expenditure falls.

$9,600 capacity value before subscription costs

Enter a quote under costs to assess net value and payback.

Current annual workload528hbefore any workflow changes

Modelled cash balanceQuote needed0% labour cash realisation

Capacity-value paybackQuote neededcash payback can differ

Where capacity comes back

27% effective reduction

Current annual labour value: $50,160. Archive spend retained: $1,200/year. Changing archive spend does not create a saving.

Green: hours potentially released at full adoption. Grey: current workload. First-year ramp and extra review effort are applied below.

See exact annual hours

Workflow	Current hours	Hours released*
Communications review	192.0	43.0
Meeting documentation	240.0	76.8
Evidence retrieval	72.0	20.7
Exam & annual-review preparation	24.0	4.6

*At full adoption, before extra oversight. The financial model applies the first-year ramp separately.

The first twelve months

Includes implementation

Capacity value before subscriptionCash balance before subscription

Explore month 12$9,600USD · cash balance: $0. Preparation effort is spread evenly over the year for planning.

Does the case survive a slower start?

Cautious uses 60% of your reduction assumptions. Stretch uses 125%, capped at 90% per workflow. These are scenarios, not confidence intervals.

Case	Year-one hours	Value before subscription
Cautious	48	$4,544
Working case	101	$9,600
Stretch	134	$12,760

Can you reconstruct the record?

0/4 confirmed

Self-reported workflow checks. 0/4 answered. These do not certify compliance or change the savings calculation.

Client records can be retrieved across every business channelReview decisions are linked to supporting evidenceMissing or unindexed channels are visible to the reviewerAn evidence pack can be reproduced from its source records

Map business channels to their archive and test one client retrieval.

Sample a cleared finding and trace the decision back to its evidence.

List missing channels explicitly before relying on any search result.

Rebuild a previous request and verify sources, participants and timestamps.

Pick up the conversation next time.

Name and save a model in this browser, or download a file to reopen on another device.

Conversation name

Reopen a downloaded model

Saves contain model inputs and readiness answers, not contact-form details. They are available only in this browser on this site, and are lost if its storage is cleared. Download a file to move between preview and production. Changes are not saved automatically.

The field guide

A retained record still has a cost to use.

An archive answers whether a record was retained. Preparing an examination response also takes retrieval, context, review and a traceable explanation. This model prices that human work using your own inputs.

Count a task once.

Enter communications review, meeting documentation and evidence retrieval as monthly hours. Enter incremental exam and annual-review preparation as annual hours. If finding a document is already counted under retrieval, do not count it again under preparation. Multi-firm teams can enter portfolio totals or an average firm workload.

The mathematics stays visible.

Annual hours potentially released = baseline hours × workflow reduction × usable-evidence coverage × adoption. In the first months, this is multiplied by month ÷ ramp months, capped at one. Additional oversight and setup hours are then deducted. Oversight defaults to hours per firm and scales with firm count independently of your workload-entry scope. Select portfolio total only when you have measured a total across all firms.

Year-one capacity value = released hours × loaded hourly cost + confirmed retired-tool spend − subscription − implementation fee. Cash balance applies your cash-realisation share to the labour value. Existing archiving spend stays in place and contributes no savings. Preparation work is spread evenly across the year, so the chart models planning value rather than invoice timing.

All starting values and efficiency assumptions are illustrative. They are not customer results, industry benchmarks, a product quote or a guarantee. Use zero coverage for an unsupported evidence source. Validate the selected workflows and integrations with ComplyVault before using this estimate in a purchase decision.

Turn the estimate into a pilot.

Choose one firm, one review workflow and one historical evidence request. Measure the original work, then repeat it with ComplyVault using the same evidence and review standard. Record corrections and checking time. Replace this model’s assumptions with the measured result.

Assumptions in this report

{
  "scenario": "base",
  "persona": "ria",
  "registration": "sec",
  "firms": 1,
  "scope": "portfolio",
  "hourly": 95,
  "review": 16,
  "meetings": 20,
  "retrieval": 6,
  "preparation": 24,
  "reductionReview": 35,
  "reductionMeetings": 50,
  "reductionRetrieval": 45,
  "reductionPreparation": 30,
  "coverage": 80,
  "adoption": 80,
  "ramp": 3,
  "overhead": 2,
  "overheadScope": "firm",
  "setupHours": 8,
  "monthlyPrice": 0,
  "setupFee": 0,
  "avoidableSpend": 0,
  "cashPercent": 0,
  "archiveSpend": 100,
  "firmHours": 120,
  "readiness": [
    "unknown",
    "unknown",
    "unknown",
    "unknown"
  ]
}

Bring your model to a workflow conversation.

Share your assumptions with ComplyVault to check integration fit, the workload baseline and pricing.

No email is needed to use or export this calculator. Contact details and the model are sent only when you submit this form. No automated report email or newsletter subscription is created. After submission, you may be taken to a confirmation or verification page.

Go deeper into the evidence.

Dense archival brush strokes narrow through a supervisory review path into a sealed evidence pack, with amber marks highlighting risk

Your Archive Is Not Your Supervisory System

An archive can preserve communications and still leave a CCO unable to show what required attention, why a matter was cleared or escalated, and how it was ultimately resolved. Retention is essential. Supervision requires an additional evidence trail.

Read field note →

Compliance records connected by an evidence trail across a dark review desk.

The SEC’s Adit Ventures Case Shows Why Conflicts Must Be Reconstructable

The SEC’s allegations against Adit Ventures show why private-market conflicts require more than disclosure language. An RIA must be able to reconstruct each representation, transaction and approval.

Read field note →

A rough painted loop passes through a narrow checkpoint and returns as a clean path.

Rule 206(4)-7 Requires an Effectiveness Review: Test Evidence, Not Just Policy Wording

An annual review should show whether material controls operated, identified exceptions and produced verified remediation—not merely that policies were updated.

Read field note →