Direct answers to fair questions.

No. A fractional CFO is an ongoing executive relationship. This is a fixed-scope implementation: I build a financial decision system, validate it, document it, train you on it, and hand it over. It ends on purpose.

No. The system consumes data your bookkeeper produces and organizes analysis your accountant and tax adviser can review — it does not replace any of them. I'm not a CPA, auditor, tax preparer, or attorney.

Realistically: a billing/subscription system, an accounting system, and payroll or contractor records. They can be messy — mapping and cleaning that data is part of the work. The diagnostic tells you exactly what's usable.

That's common and workable. The diagnostic assesses what exists; the build creates a structure the spreadsheets can feed until you adopt better systems.

It depends on scope and data readiness, which is why engagements start with a questionnaire and diagnostic rather than a quoted duration. The process is designed to be efficient: one discovery session, asynchronous build, one consolidated review.

Fixed project fees, quoted by proposal after the questionnaire. No retainers, no hourly meters running during meetings.

You own the system — code, documentation, and data model. A limited correction period covers defects. Anything new is a separately scoped engagement.

No, and they're labeled accordingly. Every portfolio example is a fictional demonstration created with synthetic data. They demonstrate method and rigor, not client results.

Yes — implementations typically map exports or APIs from your billing, accounting, and payroll systems. The demonstration on this site uses a synthetic dataset so every number can be published.

The questionnaire, one discovery session, data access, and one consolidated review. The process is deliberately low-meeting and asynchronous.