CFO Strategy Prover

CFO Strategy Prover MCP Connector for Claude

A+

A board received an AI-generated forecast: hockey stick J-curve with 90% margins and zero CAC expansion. It says 'we can always raise' as a runway strategy. It scales headcount before product-market fit. That is not financial strategy — that is a bonfire. This tool forces five CFO-level financial axes: unit economics, runway discipline, capital allocation, scenario forecasting, and risk mitigation.

1 tools Official Updated Oct 1, 2026 Official Vinkius Partner

The Problem

Every LLM commits five financial reasoning failures:

  1. Uneconomic Model — forecasts J-curves without proving margins.
  2. Runway Hazard — ignores burn rate, assumes fundraising.
  3. Capital Inefficiency — scales before product-market fit.
  4. Forecast Boilerplate — single-line projections, no scenarios.
  5. Financial Risk Exposure — ignores concentration, treasury, covenants.

The 5 Financial Axes

Axis Pivot Rule
Unit Economics Viable LTV:CAC >3x, payback 60%.
Runway Sufficient >12-18 months, burn controls, fundraising trigger.
Capital Optimized R&D vs Sales vs G&A, no premature scale.
Forecasts Scenario-Based Base, Downside, Upside with triggers.
Risk Mitigated Concentration
cfounit-economicscacltvrunwayburn-ratefinancial-strategy

1 tools expose this connector's capabilities to your AI agent.

validate_cfo_strategy

Think like a wartime CFO — not optimistic projections, but survival-tested financial discipline. Every number must be specific, every assumption stress-tested, every risk named and mitigated. You must: (1) justify UNIT ECONOMICS — CAC (by channel), LTV (with retention curve), payback period, gross margin after COGS. LTV:CAC must exceed 3x. Payback must be under 12-18 months. "Growth solves everything" is J-curve fantasy — show the margin model, (2) prove RUNWAY — current cash position, net monthly burn (not gross), months of runway (>12-18), fundraising trigger point (begin raising at 9 months remaining), and break-even path (what do you cut to extend runway by 50%). "We can always raise" is not runway — assume you cannot raise and plan accordingly, (3) optimize CAPITAL ALLOCATION — R&D vs Sales/Marketing vs G&A with percentage split and ROI threshold per channel. Every dollar must have an expected return. "Hire aggressively" before PMF is capital destruction — prove PMF first, then scale investment, (4) model FORECASTS — Base (most likely), Downside (pessimistic with specific degradation), Upside (optimistic with specific accelerator). Each scenario must have cost-cutting triggers: "If ARR <$X by month Y, trigger headcount freeze." "Conservative estimate" is a single line, not a scenario model, (5) mitigate FINANCIAL RISKS — customer concentration <15% of revenue per client, treasury diversified across 3+ banks, currency exposure hedged (forward contracts), debt covenants monitored with compliance buffer. "No significant risks" is denial — every financial plan has risks. Name them. If the tool rejects, the financial plan contains a fatal gap.Send ALL parameters in ONE call — the analyses above plus YOUR OWN verdict: every PIVOT boolean, verdict and clarification. The engine cross-checks the pivots against the verdict and rejects incomplete or self-contradictory calls. Structured reflection tool for wartime CFO-level financial strategy validation. Forces the agent to justify unit economics with specific numbers, prove runway with burn rate controls, optimize capital allocation with ROI thresholds, model scenario-based forecasts with triggers, and mitigate financial risks with specific controls. Catches Uneconomic Models (J-curve fantasies without LTV:CAC proof — "growth solves everything"), Runway Hazards (assuming fundraising replaces discipline — "we can always raise"), Capital Inefficiency (scaling before PMF — "hire aggressively" when product-market fit is unproven), Forecast Boilerplate (single-line deterministic projections — "conservative estimate" without scenarios), and Financial Risk Exposure (ignoring customer concentration >15%, treasury in one bank, unhedged currency, covenant violations). Call once per financial plan, business model, or resource allocation

See how to talk to your AI agent using CFO Strategy Prover.

Hockey stick growth, 90% margins, growth solves monetization, we can always raise, hire aggressively, conservative estimate of 15% monthly growth, no significant risks.

UNECONOMIC_MODEL — Five fatal gaps: J-curve fantasy, infinite runway assumption, premature scale, single-track forecast, risk denial.

CAC $340, LTV $4,200, LTV:CAC 12.4x, payback 2.8mo, gross margin 78%. Cash $2.4M, burn $120K/mo, runway 20mo. R&D 55%, Sales 30%, G&A 15%. Base $1.2M ARR, Downside $600K (freeze at month 9), Upside $2.1M. Concentration <15%, 3 banks, zero debt.

STRATEGY_PROVEN — Financial strategy validated. All five axes pass. Execute.

Revenue grew 40% YoY but operating cash flow declined 15%. Accounts receivable days increased from 45 to 72. Gross margin stable at 65%. What is happening?

Revenue-cash flow divergence signals collection problem. Growing revenue with deteriorating AR means selling to slow-paying customers. Tighten payment terms, implement early-payment discounts, and segment customers by payment reliability.

Scale is a multiplier of unit economics — if they are negative, growth makes losses worse. First prove: LTV:CAC >3x, payback <18 months, gross margin >60%. Then scale.

Related Connectors

Traffic Manager Prover

Traffic Manager Prover MCP

1 tools Official

A startup spent $180K on Meta Ads and reported ROAS 4.2x. The board celebrated. Then someone ran an incrementality test — a 10% holdout that saw no ads. 38% of 'attributed' conversions were organic users who would have purchased anyway. True incremental ROAS: 2.6x. $68K spent on people who needed no convincing. Platform-reported ROAS is fiction. This tool forces five axes: unit economics per channel, attribution integrity with incrementality testing, funnel diagnostics at every stage, creative performance with fatigue analysis, and audience architecture with saturation awareness.

A+ View details →
Pricing Strategy Prover

Pricing Strategy Prover MCP

1 tools Official

An AI recommended '$29/month per seat' because that is what three competitors charge. No value metric analysis — seat count has nothing to do with value delivered. No WTP research — the price was copied, not discovered. No segmentation — enterprise pays the same as a 3-person startup. No unit economics — CAC was $380 and LTV at $29/month with 14-month retention was $406. LTV/CAC of 1.07x. The company grew revenue 12% while burning 40% of cash on acquisition. This tool forces value metric definition, WTP research, segment pricing, unit economics, and packaging design.

A+ View details →
Growth Strategist

Growth Strategist MCP

1 tools Official

AI agents asked for strategy always recommend the same five things: social media, engaging content, brand awareness. None of it is strategy — it's autocomplete. Growth Strategist demands specifics: name the person, prove channel fit, take a unique position, cite evidence, tie the outcome to revenue.

A+ View details →
Long-Term Mine Plan Engine

Long-Term Mine Plan Engine MCP

4 tools Official

Generates life-of-mine schedules and resource depletion profiles.

A+ View details →