# Compare Plan Feasibility Projections Vs Historical > Ensures a feasibility analysis memo tests each projection metric against historical actuals, verifies internal arithmetic, accounts for mandatory cash sweep obligations omitted from projections, and frames the analysis under the applicable plan-confirmation feasibility standard. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/compare-plan-feasibility-projections-vs-historical` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/compare-plan-feasibility-projections-vs-historical` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/compare-plan-feasibility-projections-vs-historical/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/compare-plan-feasibility-projections-vs-historical --- # Skill: Compare Plan Feasibility Projections Against Historical Financials ## 1. Subject-matter triage - Treat the task as a comparison-and-advisory memo, not a generic summary. - If the materials contain multiple forecast vintages, operating cases, or historical periods, enumerate them first and analyze each explicitly rather than blending them into one pass. - If only one projection set or one historical baseline is provided, state that expressly and explain why no alternate comparison set is available. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Agent identifies headline revenue and EBITDA projections but does not test them line by line against historical actuals across multiple years. - Agent misses arithmetic errors embedded in the projections — EBITDA build errors, free cash flow errors — that create an internally inconsistent picture. - Agent fails to model the impact of mandatory excess cash flow sweep obligations that the projections omit, thereby overstating available cash. - Agent does not apply the applicable plan-confirmation feasibility standard explicitly or frame a concrete recommendation in procedural terms. - Agent discusses reasonableness in the abstract without tying each issue to a quantified historical comparator, the interacting covenant or assumption, and the practical consequence for feasibility. - Agent gives a diagnosis without a clear action recommendation, timing anchor, or responsible owner. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Feasibility standard: the plan should not be likely to be followed by liquidation or further reorganization; projections must be reasonable, internally consistent, and supportable in light of the capital structure and operating history. - Projection testing dimensions: revenue growth versus historical growth; gross margin trend versus historical best year; SG&A as a percentage of revenue versus historical actuals; EBITDA arithmetic verification; free cash flow calculation; depreciation and amortization trends relative to capex and any fresh-start accounting step-up; working capital cycle assumptions. - Excess cash flow sweep: if the emergence financing or comparable debt package requires mandatory prepayments from excess cash flow, projected liquidity must reflect that burden rather than assume full retention of cash. - Net operating loss limitations: if post-emergence tax attributes are used to reduce projected taxes, reflect any applicable limitation associated with an ownership change or similar restriction. - Fresh-start accounting: post-emergence depreciation and amortization should align with stepped-up asset values and expected capital expenditure; declining D&A despite continuing capex warrants explanation. - Sensitivity analysis: the absence of downside cases or margin-of-safety testing is itself relevant to the feasibility inquiry. - Use controlling legal authorities for the feasibility proposition and any tax or financing limitation actually relied upon in the memo; do not state a legal conclusion without naming the supporting rule, statute, regulation, or case. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Build a comparison matrix for each available period that pairs projected metric, historical actual, direction of change, and reasonableness assessment. - Test each key projection metric against historical actuals for every available year of history. - Verify EBITDA, free cash flow, and any other presented roll-forward arithmetic independently in each projected year. - Trace every cash flow component to the assumptions that drive it, including debt service, capex, working capital, taxes, and any mandatory sweep or prepayment feature. - Evaluate each major assumption as reasonable, aggressive, or unrealistic based on the actual operating track record and source materials. - Quantify the impact of any omitted sweep, tax limitation, or accounting convention on liquidity and covenant headroom. - Separate a projection that is merely optimistic from one that is internally inconsistent or arithmetically incorrect. - Note the absence of sensitivity or downside analysis as a standalone feasibility vulnerability. - Frame a clear feasibility conclusion and vote recommendation that follows from the issue-by-issue analysis. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - Compare projected periods to the most recent historical periods first, then step back to longer-run trends if they are available. - Where assumptions move in opposite directions across the forecast horizon, explain whether the trend is a temporary bridge or a sustained operating thesis. - Distinguish pre-emergence history, emergence-period assumptions, and post-emergence steady-state projections when the materials span those stages. - If the plan relies on a step-up, reset, refinancing, or other structural change, explain how that change affects the trajectory of margins, depreciation, taxes, and available cash over time. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Produce a client-ready feasibility analysis memo with a short executive summary, a comparison table, numbered issue sections, and a closing recommendation. - Define a simple ordinal severity scale once near the top and apply it consistently to each issue. - For each issue, use the same internal logic: Projection Assumption → Historical Comparison → Severity → Assessment → Feasibility Impact. - Each issue should close with three moves: quantify the divergence or exposure using figures from the source set; tie it to the interacting assumption, covenant, or document feature; and state the downstream consequence for feasibility, liquidity, or vote support. - Include an explicit conclusion on whether the plan appears feasible under the governing standard and whether the vote recommendation is support, oppose, or reserve judgment. - End with a Recommended Actions block that uses imperative verbs, names the responsible role, and includes a timing anchor tied to the confirmation or solicitation timeline. - Keep the memo self-contained and commercially polished; use industry-conventional headings rather than the exact section labels from the rubric.