Continuum Application Audit

Client stories

What changed in the pack

Evidence from real engagement shapes — a contradiction caught, a query round shortened, a board that could finally explain its own numbers.

“They caught a receivables ageing that contradicted our growth paragraph. Awkward to read — and exactly why we hired them before the bank meeting.”

H. Tsai · Manufacturing finance lead · Full Application Financial Audit

“The screening note was shorter than I expected. That was the point: five fatal gaps, not a novel. We fixed four before lodging and owned the fifth openly.”

R. Ong · Trading company controller · Pre-Submission Screening

“I still wish we had started two weeks earlier — the rush fee was real — but the amendment map stopped us from answering query three in a way that broke schedule seven.”

L. Fang · Association treasurer · Amendment & Resubmission Support

“The readiness briefing forced our spokesperson to stop waving at ‘strong margins’ and point to the exact page. The credit officer noticed.”

C. Wu · Family business director · Board & Lender Readiness Briefing

Extended notes

Two longer sketches of how a review unfolded — constraints included.

Team discussing printed reports in a meeting room

Facility pack for a tooling upgrade

A central Taiwan manufacturer prepared a medium-term facility application for CNC tooling. Our full audit found the use-of-proceeds schedule listing equipment that did not match the supplier quotations in the appendix — different models, different deposits.

The team had eight business days before the relationship manager’s internal deadline. We ranked the quotation mismatch as high severity, helped align the schedule to the signed quotes, and left a residual note on FX assumptions the board chose not to hedge. The pack lodged on time; the bank still asked about FX, but not about phantom machines.

Notebook open during a careful planning discussion

Subsidy round with a thin co-funding row

An industry association returned to Continuum Application Audit after a prior year’s clarification letter. The new pack looked polished until the co-funding percentage was reverse-engineered from a round lump of “staff contribution.”

Screening alone would have flagged it; because history existed, we combined screening with a short amendment-style rewrite of the co-funding exhibit. The treasurer later noted that the awarding clerk’s questions focused on programme fit, not arithmetic — a quieter outcome than the year before.

Names are shortened for client confidentiality. Engagement types match the services listed on this site.

Discuss your pack