Skip to content
← Back to work

Financial reasoning with source evidence

Research, valuation, risk and compliance judgments delivered with answers, evidence, boundaries and review state.

≈4.2Kreasoning tasks48–64Kcontext>97%evidence alignment
MERIDIAN / WORKSPACE
Financial reasoning with source evidence · workbench concept
Meridian workspace example

Task understanding before scale

A financial-model team needed to test whether the model could reason across multi-year statements, credit policy, sector research and risk clauses without losing evidentiary grounding. We defined the document hierarchy, temporal scope and citation protocol before finance-qualified authors constructed research, valuation, risk and compliance tasks. Independent reviewers assessed conclusions and evidence spans without seeing the original judgment. Figures shown are from a representative sanitized batch; identities, source material and selected volumes have been removed or banded.

01

Multi-year, multi-source context with citation spans

02

Answer, evidence, counter-evidence and uncertainty delivered together

03

High-risk disagreement routed to finance adjudication

02 / PROCUREMENT REVIEW STRUCTURE

One structure aligns the questions asked by model, data, procurement and security teams.

01 / Capability gap

Research, valuation, risk and compliance judgments delivered with answers, evidence, boundaries and review state.

02 / Evaluation object

Controlled packs spanning statements, credit policy, sector research and risk clauses

03 / Task design

Finance authors, protocol QA and independent evidence review operated as separate roles

04 / Operating scale

Representative batch of approximately 4,200 reasoning tasks at 48K–64K tokens each

05 / QA protocol

Finance specialists × source evidence × independent review; High-risk disagreement routed to finance adjudication

06 / Evidence package

Multi-year, multi-source context with citation spans; Answer, evidence, counter-evidence and uncertainty delivered together; Evidence-span acceptance above 97%; all high-risk disputes retained an auditable ruling

07 / Disclosure

Client identity, original material and selected volumes are removed or banded. This brief explains delivery method and does not guarantee future results.

NEXT STEP

Review samples. Then define the task.

Carry this direction into your enquiry to confirm delivery, verification and sample scope.

Request samplesInspect deliverables

Build data around your next capability goal

Start with a task goal and a sample. Define the materials, specialists, verification methods and delivery scope together.