Your book's answers live in ten systems and three people's memory. Foundation reads them into one, cited.
Portfolio reviews, risk checks, and client reporting all start the same way: reconciling a picture from custodians, the performance system, the CRM, and spreadsheets that each show a different number as of a different date. Foundation reads across them and answers with each fact cited to its source, nothing changed without your sign-off.
Which households are we managing against a restriction we may be breaching?
Foundation on Ridgeline Private Wealth, an illustrative firm. The data is staged; the interactions are real.
Click a citation · find the restriction nobody wrote down · approve or decline the write
Asked · P. Nakamura, Investment Analyst
Which households are we managing against a restriction we may be breaching?
The Okonjo-Bell household
$78M · Restriction given on a call
Asked for no private prison exposure on the Nov 8 call. The IPS was never amended.
The advisor agreed on the call. No document, no CRM field, and no restriction in the portfolio system carries it.
Needs action
Every finding is backed by a record you can open. Nothing is asserted without a source.
The remaining 209 households sit inside every restriction on file, checked against live positions rather than the last review pack.
For teams whose answers have to be right in front of a client
Chief investment officers, wealth advisory teams, and portfolio managers at asset managers. If a wrong figure in a review, or a client restriction missed in a rebalance, is a relationship problem and not just a data problem, this is built for you.
The current picture is never in one place
Every review, risk check, and client report begins by reassembling the truth from systems that don't talk. That gap doesn't close by buying another dashboard.
No two systems agree on the number
Positions across custodians, performance in the reporting system, relationships in the CRM, restrictions in the IPS, commitments in calls and email. No one system holds the whole household, and no two agree on the number.
Every review starts with hours of assembly
Prep for a review or a client report is mostly manual assembly and re-verification, before anyone does the actual thinking.
A wrong figure is a client problem
In front of a client, an unsourced number isn't a data-quality issue; it's a trust issue. Figures need a source you can open.
How Foundation reads your book into one picture
Not another dashboard. A layer that reads what you already hold and answers with each figure cited and every change governed.
Same four steps everywhere Foundation runs. Only the domain changes.
What one current picture gets you
Answers you can put in front of a client
Every figure cites its source. The trail is the account of the work: who asked, what ran, which record, when. What we retain, and how we delete it, is itemized on our trust page.
The review memo, in minutes
The prep that eats an analyst's morning comes back sourced. And the checks that get skipped at quarter end, drift against the IPS, breached restrictions, concentration, run on every book, not just the loud ones.
Named on both sides
Your access is governed, and so is ours. Trucast's own access to your environment is a named, scoped, logged seat, not hidden admin: you see who we are, what we can read, and every action we take.
A clean exit
Read access is a credential you revoke in one click. Nothing changed in your systems except what your people approved, each change logged.
See your book, read into one picture
The fastest way to see it is to watch Foundation read a stand-in of your book and cite each figure, built on representative data, not your live records. You operate it before either side commits, priced up front.