4 weeks · ¥39,000 JPY
A capital proposal that holds up to scrutiny — from owners and lenders alike.
Structured support for companies preparing the case for a significant investment in equipment, premises or systems — with a working financial model handed to you at the close.
What this engagement produces
At the end of four weeks, your company will have a working financial model — built with your figures, your operational assumptions — and a written investment case that sets out the logic behind the numbers clearly enough that owners or lenders can read it, question it, and reach their own view.
The case covers the alternatives, including doing nothing. It documents the conditions under which the investment would not repay. The goal is a proposal that is credible precisely because it does not hide the uncertainties — which tends to be more persuasive than one that does.
A working model
The financial model is handed to your company. Your team can update it, rerun the scenarios, and use it in future discussions without external support.
Documented assumptions
Every operational assumption behind the figures is written down explicitly. Reviewers can identify which assumptions they want to challenge rather than treating the numbers as a black box.
Failure conditions stated
The scenarios in which the case fails are set out clearly. This is not pessimism — it is what a rigorous proposal includes, and it tends to build rather than undermine confidence.
Alternatives considered
Alternative options, including the option of not proceeding, are addressed — giving the proposal the breadth that serious reviewers expect.
Where the difficulty usually sits
Most companies undertaking a significant capital commitment are not short of a view on whether it is the right thing to do. The people closest to the decision have thought about it carefully, and their judgment is usually sound.
The difficulty is translation: turning a well-reasoned internal view into a document that communicates its logic clearly to someone who was not in the room for the preceding months of thinking. Owners reviewing a capital proposal need to be able to follow the reasoning. Lenders assessing a loan application need to see the downside, not just the return. A case that is clear internally but murky on paper rarely gets the response it deserves.
There is also the question of what the proposal does not say. A well-constructed investment case addresses the alternatives and states the failure conditions plainly. Proposals that avoid these tend to raise more questions than they answer — and can signal, unintentionally, that the case is not as strong as it is being presented.
The typical situation
A company with a sound investment decision to make, preparing to present it to owners or lenders who were not part of the internal reasoning process.
Where proposals stall
Numbers without documented assumptions. No consideration of alternatives. No failure conditions. These gaps invite challenges the company could have anticipated.
What this addresses
A structured four-week process that translates internal judgment into a document rigorous enough to withstand external review.
The approach taken in this engagement
The engagement begins with the operational assumptions behind the investment: why this, why now, and what the company expects to be different as a result. These are drawn out in working sessions with the people who know the business — not constructed by an external party from the outside.
From those assumptions, a financial model is built that expresses the investment case in terms reviewers can work with. The model includes scenario runs — what the case looks like if key assumptions prove optimistic, and at what point the investment would no longer repay.
The written case sets out the reasoning in plain language, with the alternatives addressed honestly and the failure conditions stated. The model is handed to your company at the close — structured so that your team can update and reuse it independently.
Why this approach holds up
The model is built on your assumptions, drawn out in working sessions — so the figures mean something to the people presenting them, not just to the person who built the spreadsheet.
The failure conditions are identified and stated plainly. Reviewers who find them will not feel they have discovered a weakness — they will be reading a proposal that anticipated their question.
The alternatives, including doing nothing, are addressed within the case — so the proposal demonstrates that the chosen option was selected, not defaulted to.
The working model is structured to remain useful after the engagement. Your team can rerun scenarios and update figures as the investment progresses.
How the four weeks are structured
Operational assumptions
Working sessions with the people closest to the investment decision. What is the operational logic? What does the company expect to change, and why?
Model construction
The financial model is built from the documented assumptions. Scenario runs are constructed — baseline, conservative, and the conditions under which the case fails.
Alternatives and written case
The alternative options are addressed and the written investment case is drafted — plain language, assumptions visible, failure conditions stated.
Review and handover
The case and model are reviewed with your team, questions addressed, and both documents handed over. The model is structured for independent use from this point.
A note on the process
The working sessions in week one often surface assumptions that had not previously been made explicit — about utilisation rates, timing of returns, dependencies on other parts of the business. Working through these before constructing the model means the figures rest on foundations your team can defend, rather than on estimates assembled under time pressure.
The engagement fee
Fee
¥39,000 JPY
Agreed in full before work begins. No revision billing within standard scope.
The fee covers four weeks of structured work — working sessions with your team, model construction, the written case, and a follow-up review point. The financial model and investment case document are both handed to your company at the close of the engagement.
Payment schedule is confirmed in writing before work begins. Standard practice is to spread the fee across the engagement period rather than front-loading it — the precise arrangement is agreed with you at the outset.
What is included
Four weeks of working sessions with the team closest to the investment decision
A working financial model — structured for independent use — handed to your company at close
Documented assumptions behind every figure — explicit enough for reviewers to challenge them specifically
A written investment case covering the rationale, alternatives and failure conditions
A follow-up review point after delivery, included at no additional fee
What to expect and how progress is measured
This engagement produces a document and a model, both within four weeks. The quality of those outputs can be assessed at the close: whether the assumptions are documented clearly, whether the model reflects operational reality, and whether the case is written in a way that a reviewer who was not involved could follow and engage with.
What happens after that depends on decisions made by owners and lenders that are outside the scope of this engagement. The case cannot determine their response. It can ensure that the proposal they are reviewing is as clear, thorough and well-constructed as the company can make it.
The horizon table opposite shows what changes at different points after the engagement closes, for companies that go on to use the outputs in practice.
Within 3 months
Within a year
Beyond
A proposal presented to owners or lenders with a working model and documented assumptions — ready for substantive review.
The model updated with actual figures as the investment progresses. Scenarios revisited against real performance.
A financial modelling capability within the company — your team has built and used a real working model and can apply the same approach to future investment decisions.
Our commitment to you
The model is yours
The working financial model is handed to your company at the close of the engagement — not held back or provided in a locked format. Your team can open it, update it, and use it without further involvement from us.
Honest about weaknesses
If the working sessions surface material weaknesses in the investment case, those will be set out clearly in the engagement — because a reviewer who finds them later is a much more difficult situation than addressing them now.
No obligation initially
The initial conversation is at no charge. If, after discussing your situation, this engagement is not what your proposal needs, that will be said directly — and we can indicate what might be more appropriate.
How to proceed if this is relevant
Get in touch
Use the contact form or write to info@mast-corelab.com. Briefly describe the investment you are considering and where in the process you are.
Initial conversation
We discuss what the investment is, who the proposal is for, and what the case currently looks like. No commitment involved at this stage.
Scope agreed in writing
If the engagement is the right fit, scope, timing and the full fee are confirmed in writing before work begins.
If you have a significant investment to propose and want the case to be prepared properly, this engagement is structured for exactly that.
Other engagements available
8 weeks · ¥45,000 JPY
Long-Term Planning Engagement
A structured process covering a three- to five-year horizon — where demand is likely to move, what capability would be needed, and what must be committed and when.
View details6 weeks · ¥36,000 JPY
Sustainability Reporting Support
Practical support for companies asked to report on environmental and social matters — frameworks, data collection and accurate reporting without overstating.
View details4 weeks · ¥31,000 JPY
Risk Register Development
A working risk register covering operational, financial, supply, regulatory and key-person exposures — with a review schedule your team can follow independently.
See all engagements