Independent Structural Model Review
Executive Summary
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Review is a fixed-scope structural engagement, generated from the engine's coverage output, sold into the existing lender-mandated model audit budget line.
- ✓ One engagement covers one model at one deal stage; multi-stage deals are delivered as sequential engagements under one client record.
- ✓ The deliverable pairs deterministic structural findings with a disclosed, scoped structural opinion, never a full judgment on assumptions or accounting treatment.
- ✓ It is the entry point for cross-sold products on the same deal, including the Resubmission Diff Pack and the Close Baseline Pack.
- ✓ Findings are ordered by severity and reach, with related findings clustered rather than listed as noise.
Purpose¶
The Independent Structural Model Review is Oxxon Advisors' position-one product: a scoped, deterministic, provenance-stamped structural review sold into the mandated model audit budget line that already exists on project finance and infrastructure transactions. It delivers the structural tranche of the review that a lender typically mandates, generated from the engine's coverage output, with the scope stated in writing before the engagement begins.
Who It Is For¶
The customer base is sponsors and lenders on project finance and infrastructure deals, spanning the unserved mid-market and the wider GCC pipeline. The lender mandates the review; the sponsor or borrower typically procures and pays for it. It displaces the manual audit engagements typically delivered at higher price points and with materially more unpriced labour hours per deal cycle.
Problems Solved¶
- Lenders need independent structural verification of a borrower's model before committing to a deal, but full manual audits are slow and expensive.
- Multi-stage deals need each stage's model independently checked, from bid through binding offer to financial close, without re-scoping the review each time.
- Sponsors need a defensible, disclosed structural opinion they can put in front of a lender, distinct from a claim that the whole model, including its judgment calls, has been vouched for.
- Deal teams need a review methodology that produces the same result on the same model every time, rather than one that varies with the reviewer.
Workflow¶
The engine runs its structural rule pack against the model submitted at a given deal stage, including a free compliance check where the model claims to follow the FAST standard. The resulting findings, coverage, and provenance data feed a scope statement generated directly from what was actually analysed. A senior reviewer applies a scoped structural opinion on top of the engine's output, a real and disclosed judgment layer distinct from the deterministic findings beneath it. Multi-stage deals run as sequential engagements under one client record, with each stage depositing its own baseline-grade record of the model reviewed at that point.
Outputs¶
The deliverable is the REV report: an executive panel stating the overall grade, the plain-language consequence, the lead remediation item, a coverage line, a provenance line, and the path to reliance, followed by a Management Action Register with owner and date fields left blank for the client to complete, then findings ordered by severity and reach with related findings grouped rather than listed individually, and appendices including verifier-grade evidence and a reliance appendix for counsel. The engagement is also recorded end to end in Oxxon's delivery platform, and a verification entry is issued on completion.
Continue Reading¶
Related Products¶
- FMAE Product Overview
- Financial Model Audit Engine (FMAE)
- Resubmission Diff Pack
- Close Baseline Pack
- Committee Readiness Pack
Related Pillars¶
Related Comparisons¶
Related Checklists¶
Related Case Studies¶
How OXXON tests thisRun a free structural check with FMAE
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Independent Structural Model Review?
A scoped, deterministic structural review of a financial model, delivered as a fixed-scope engagement with the scope stated in writing, sold into the lender-mandated model audit budget line on project finance and infrastructure deals.
Who buys the Independent Structural Model Review?
Lenders mandate it; the sponsor or borrower typically procures and pays for it as part of the deal process.
What deals is it used on?
Project finance and infrastructure transactions, including the unserved mid-market and GCC pipeline deals, at bid, binding offer, and financial close stages.
How is it different from a full manual audit from a large advisory firm?
It applies the same deterministic structural methodology every time, is reproducible, and is typically delivered faster and at a lower price point than a comparable manual engagement.
What does the report actually contain?
An executive panel stating the overall grade and plain-language consequence, a Management Action Register, findings ordered by severity and reach, and supporting appendices, including a reliance appendix for counsel.
Does the Review assess whether the model's assumptions are reasonable?
No. It tests structural mechanics. Assumption reasonableness and accounting judgment remain outside its scope and are handled separately by the deal team's own advisors.
What happens on a multi-stage deal?
Each stage, bid, binding offer, and close, is run as its own sequential engagement under one client record, and each stage deposits its own baseline-grade record of the model reviewed at that point.
Can the Review be delivered faster than the standard timeline?
Yes, through the 48-Hour Model Check, a registered expedited configuration that applies the identical scope and pipeline on a compressed clock.
Related Articles
What Is a Project Finance Model Audit?
A project finance model audit is a financial model audit applied to the specific class of model used to finance infrastructure, energy, and long dated capital projects: debt sculpted, multi decade, cash flow driven structures with mechanics that do not appear in a typical corporate model. It is frequently a formal condition of financial close, not an optional check, and lender requirements for it exist almost entirely inside non public bank credit policy rather than any single consolidated public source. This page defines what makes project finance models structurally distinct, why lenders require independent verification of them specifically, and what the audit process looks like in this context.
Audit vs Validation — What's the Difference?
Financial model audit and model validation are frequently used as interchangeable terms, and specifying the wrong one in a lender requirement or an internal policy leads to real confusion about what has actually been checked. They test different things. An audit tests whether a model's mechanics are correct. Validation tests whether the model's methodology and assumptions are appropriate for its intended purpose. Both are legitimate, useful exercises. They are not substitutes for each other.
What Is a Financial Model Audit?
A financial model audit is an independent, structured examination of an Excel based financial model to confirm that its mechanics, logic, and outputs are reliable enough to support a decision. It is not a check of whether the assumptions are optimistic or conservative. It is a check of whether the model actually calculates what its author believes it calculates. Every year, lenders extend debt, investment committees approve capital, and boards sign off on transactions using numbers that came out of a spreadsheet nobody outside the immediate deal team has independently verified. A financial model audit exists to close that gap before it becomes expensive.