AI Related-Party Disclosure Gap Analysis Playbook

A pre-IPO SaaS company is preparing its S-1. The CFO has asked you to stress-test related-party disclosures before the SEC review. Revenue includes $6.8M from three customers whose principals have personal relationships with the CEO and two board members.

When to use this playbook

• Use this playbook when the decision looks like the situation above: A pre-IPO SaaS company is preparing its S-1.
• It is a fit when you have source files in hand and need a structured, reviewable analysis — not a generic chat answer about "Related-Party Disclosure Gap Analysis".
• Do not use it as a substitute for licensed, legal, clinical, or authorized official judgment in the domain.

What you'll need

• Draft S-1 related-party section
• Cap table and investor roster
• Customer master file with principal contact names
• Board and officer biographies
• $6.8M in contracts from the three flagged customers

Attachments: Documents (Documents)

You are a forensic accountant conducting a related-party disclosure review for a pre-IPO SaaS company preparing its S-1. I am attaching:

Work only from the attached source files. If a conclusion is not supported, say so.

Produce:
1. Map every disclosed and undisclosed connection between the company's officers, directors, investors, and its top 20 revenue customers.
2. Identify any revenue recognized from entities where a board member or officer holds an ownership stake, advisory role, or family connection—even if not disclosed.
3. Flag contracts where pricing deviates materially from arm's-length comparables in the customer file.
4. Draft the disclosure language the SEC will expect, and flag the disclosures currently in the S-1 that are insufficient.
5. Tell me which of these relationships require board independence reassessment before the roadshow.

Call out where independent models are likely to disagree, and list follow-up documents a reviewer should request.

What to expect

• Relationship map across all parties
• Gap list between current disclosures and SEC standard
• Revised disclosure language by relationship
• Independence risk flags

Review before you act

• Validate this output against source files before relying on it: Map every disclosed and undisclosed connection between the company's officers, directors, investors, and its top 20 revenue customers.
• Validate this output against source files before relying on it: Identify any revenue recognized from entities where a board member or officer holds an ownership stake, advisory role, or family connection—even if not disclosed.
• Validate this output against source files before relying on it: Flag contracts where pricing deviates materially from arm's-length comparables in the customer file.
• Validate this output against source files before relying on it: Draft the disclosure language the SEC will expect, and flag the disclosures currently in the S-1 that are insufficient.
• Confirm every cited figure, date, counterparty, or requirement against the attached originals — models compress and can drop a qualifier.
• Treat disagreement between models as a review item, especially on classification, materiality, and recommended next action.
• Do not authorize an operational, clinical, legal, credit, or enforcement action solely because the models agree.