Home / Our Methodology
Our MethodologyThe math is the firm. Inspect it.
We publish the structure of our methodology — the model, the data sources, the rules, and the governance — because a claim you can't inspect is just marketing. Any qualified analyst following this methodology would reach the same numbers we do. That is the entire point.
Every finding travels the same four steps
No shortcuts, no exceptions, and — critically — no step where anyone's opinion can adjust the number.
Inputs
Your contract terms and figures — documented, dated, and confirmed with your team before anything is computed.
Benchmark
A rule-constructed peer set from named public data sources. The rules are published; the peer set is disclosed in the finding.
Worksheet
Every figure in the worksheet traces to an input or a benchmark — nothing else.
Finding
A written finding, owned by your institution unconditionally — including the finding that your contract is sound, when it is.
Three documents, published in full
The Leakage Model
The equation behind every audit, annotated term by term: what each input means, where it comes from, and a fully worked hypothetical showing the arithmetic end to end — plus a plain statement of what the model does not claim.
Learn more →Benchmarks & Data Sources
Where the peer comparisons come from — IPEDS, NACUBO, NACS, and public contract disclosures — and the rules that construct a peer set: enrollment band, institution type, store model, region, and minimum set size.
Learn more →Methodology Independence Statement
The document that governs every engagement, published verbatim: findings belong to the institution unconditionally, no subjective override exists, and no finding is contingent on further engagement.
Learn more →What we publish — and the one thing we don't
We publish the model's structure, the data sources, the peer-set construction rules, the recency policy, and the governance document — everything a CFO or General Counsel needs to evaluate whether the methodology is sound.
What we don't publish are the specific benchmark coefficients — the current peer-set rate tables themselves. Two reasons, both of which we'd rather state than have you wonder about: the tables are built partly from client-confidential engagement data we're bound to protect, and publishing live rate tables would hand every operator a map of exactly what institutions know. Your engagement's finding discloses the full peer set and every coefficient used for your institution — inspection where it matters, to the party it matters to.
- The leakage model, annotated, with worked arithmetic
- All benchmark data sources, named
- Peer-set construction rules and minimum set size
- Data recency and vintage-dating policy
- The Independence Statement, verbatim
- Within your finding: your full peer set and every coefficient applied
Why “no override” is the whole methodology
“If the same inputs wouldn't produce the same finding in someone else's hands, we'd consider the methodology broken.”
Most advisory work runs on judgment, which means most advisory findings can't be checked — only believed. Ours runs on a documented, versioned model precisely so it can be checked: by your analysts, your auditors, or a competitor.