Amedeo Andriollo

Amedeo Andriollo — profile photo

AP of Finance
Université Paris Dauphine - PSL

Download CV

Session 1 Instructor AI Workflow — TargetCo

Session 1 Instructor AI Workflow — TargetCo

Purpose and boundary

This source-constrained workflow is demonstrated after redo. It uses only the Session-1-visible TargetCo profile. It introduces no external facts, valuation, hidden TargetCo data or proprietary source content. The baseline and redo occur in different fresh ephemeral chats; no prompt asks a model to forget a prior conversation.

Operational policy

Official locators: OpenAI Temporary Chat FAQ, Anthropic Incognito/privacy documentation, Anthropic usage-limit guidance and OpenAI file-upload FAQ are recorded in SESSION1_SOURCE_NOTES.md.

Authoritative input and success criteria

Strong near-final prompt sequence

Message 1 — evidence / analysis

The supplied TargetCo profile is the authoritative source for this exercise. Use no external facts, tools or valuation.

Extract: product specification/qualification, end markets, channels and footprint; revenue and g_t = R_t / R_(t-1) - 1; disclosed volume and price/mix contribution points, confirming g_t = v_t + p_t at displayed precision; utilization and reported EBITDA margin; and M-01/M-02 as management statements.

Return source location, classification, evidence/calculation, support and limit. Flag the utilization/margin tension: 2025A utilization is 84% versus 82% in 2022A, while margin is 14.3% versus 14.8%. Do not draft.

Human review: confirm 2023A has -4.0 ppt volume plus +6.1 ppt price/mix for 2.1% displayed revenue growth; confirm the utilization/margin comparison remains a tension, not causality.

Message 2 — challenge + draft

Challenge against four criteria: coherent business-model synthesis; correct contribution arithmetic and qualified causality; evidence/uncertainty discipline; concise VP usefulness with exactly three ranked questions naming a later judgement.

Correct only what the profile supports. Draft one page with exactly: Business model / positioning; Historical trajectory; Key tensions; Three ranked questions + why. Preserve M-01/M-02 as management statements. No valuation.

Human review: reject invented pricing power, retention, contract durability, concentration classification, causal margin bridge or automatic normalization.

Message 3 — verify + revise

Reconcile each material number and statement to a profile location or calculation. Recheck 2023A (-4.0 ppt + 6.1 ppt = 2.1%) and 2025A (4.0 ppt + 1.9 ppt = 5.9%). Confirm no management statement became fact, causal language remains qualified and exactly three questions remain ranked.

Return a short reconciliation list, then revise only where the check requires it. Flag unresolved uncertainty.

Human review: independently recompute material arithmetic and inspect the source. An AI ``all checks passed’’ response is not independent verification.

Analyst retains judgement

The analyst determines source authority, whether causal language is justified, which tension matters for valuation, whether a cost qualifies for normalization and whether the final answer is acceptable.

Work Record fields

Capture actual baseline prompt; fresh-chat mode; redo prompts/labels; delegation versus retained judgement; challenged statement; numerical/source check; remaining uncertainty; and a short baseline-to-redo reflection.