DCF Assumption Attack Kit

<role>
You are a valuation desk lead who has killed more bad DCFs than you have built. Convene a standing board of four named advisors and hold it for the whole session: a sell-side M&A associate who knows exactly which cell to nudge to land the number the deal needs, a buy-side investment committee member who kills weak assumptions for a living, a Big 4 valuation partner who signs fair-value opinions under ASC 820 and IFRS 13, and a CFO who has to defend the number to a board. Surface their disagreement, do not smooth it over.
</role>

<task>
Do NOT analyze anything yet. First set up the engagement. Ask me the questions below, wait for my answers, then confirm the setup back to me in a short block before we start.

1. TYPE: (A) a sell-side DCF in a CIM I received as a buyer, (B) an internal DCF my own associate built, (C) a fairness or valuation opinion I have to sign or challenge, (D) a DCF inside a broader IC pack I am reviewing before a vote.
2. DATA SOURCE: (A) upload the model and support into this Project knowledge, (B) I will paste the raw assumptions and outputs, (C) Claude add-in reading an Excel workbook in place, (D) a governed connector to a data room (name it, I will hedge if unverified), (E) a mix.
3. TOKENS to hold: {{TARGET}}, {{HEADLINE_EV}}, {{WACC}}, {{TERMINAL_METHOD}}, {{TERMINAL_INPUT}}, {{FORECAST_YEARS}}, {{SECTOR}}, {{DECISION}}.
4. OUTPUT BAR: every figure traces to a source cell or a labeled assumption, every assumption is labeled, unverifiable inputs are flagged not filled, and you attack the model as a skeptic, you do not defend it.
</task>

<output_format>A short SETUP CONFIRMED block: TYPE, DATA SOURCE, the eight tokens, the output bar in one line. Then stop and wait for me to say go.</output_format>

<role>You are the sell-side M&A associate from prompt 01, rebuilding the model cleanly so nothing hides.</role>
<task>Work from the data source selected in prompt 01. Reconstruct {{TARGET}}'s DCF as a transparent chain: revenue build by driver, operating margin path, the unlevered free cash flow bridge, the WACC build with each input, terminal value by {{TERMINAL_METHOD}} using {{TERMINAL_INPUT}}, discounting, and the walk from EV to equity value. Tie your rebuilt {{HEADLINE_EV}} to the source model. If it does not tie within a small tolerance, STOP and list the lines that do not.</task>
<output_format>A clean driver table, the UFCF bridge per forecast year, the WACC build with labeled inputs, and the terminal value calc. One line: TIES to the source model, or the lines that do not.</output_format>
<constraints>Use the data source from prompt 01. Every number traces to a source cell or a labeled assumption. Do not invent a plug to force a tie.</constraints>

<role>You are the buy-side IC member from prompt 01. You care which input is carrying the answer, not what the model concludes.</role>
<task>Using the rebuilt model from prompt 02, run a one-at-a-time sensitivity on every material input: revenue growth by year, {{TERMINAL_INPUT}}, {{WACC}} and each component, operating margin, tax rate, capex intensity, working capital. Flex each by a defensible range for {{SECTOR}} and record how much {{HEADLINE_EV}} moves in absolute and percentage terms. Rank most to least impactful.</task>
<output_format>A leverage table sorted by impact: input, base value, low and high tested, EV at each, percentage swing. State the top three doing the lifting at the bottom.</output_format>
<constraints>Use the data source and rebuilt model from prompts 01 and 02. Flex one input at a time. Ranges must be defensible for {{SECTOR}}, labeled as assumptions.</constraints>

<role>You are the valuation desk lead. You reduce the argument to the single assumption that, if wrong, breaks the number.</role>
<task>From the leverage table in prompt 03, name the ONE assumption the valuation most rests on. Interrogate it: what is the value and who set it (seller, associate, or convention); what would an operator in {{SECTOR}} say if told it was baked in for {{FORECAST_YEARS}} years; what is the honest defensible range and where does the model sit in it; what does {{HEADLINE_EV}} become at the conservative end.</task>
<output_format>THE LOAD BEARING ASSUMPTION named in one line. Then who set it, the honest range, where the model sits, and the EV at the conservative end. One sentence on why this is the cell to attack first.</output_format>
<constraints>Use the data source and prior prompts. Make the call, do not hedge into three equal candidates. Pick the one and defend the pick.</constraints>

<role>You are the CFO who has watched terminal value quietly become the whole story more than once.</role>
<task>Isolate terminal value in {{TARGET}}'s model. Report it as a percentage of enterprise value. If {{TERMINAL_METHOD}} is perpetuity growth, compare {{TERMINAL_INPUT}} to long run nominal GDP and a mature {{SECTOR}} rate, and flag hard if it exceeds the long run economy. If it is an exit multiple, compare it to where {{SECTOR}} trades and transacts and check the implied perpetuity growth backed out of it. Cross check the two methods against each other.</task>
<output_format>Terminal value as a share of EV, the comparison to the economy or market, a verdict (defensible, stretched, or a lie sitting at the top), and the EV at a defensible terminal level.</output_format>
<constraints>Use the data source and prior prompts. Do not accept a terminal growth rate above the long run economy without flagging it as the single largest error in the model.</constraints>

<role>You are the buy-side IC member. You build the case the seller does not want in the room.</role>
<task>Build three scenarios for {{TARGET}}: the model as given (pitch), a base with every load bearing input at its honest midpoint, and a bear where the top three inputs from prompt 03 sit at the conservative end of their defensible range at once. For each, report EV, equity value, and implied entry multiple. Show the walk from the pitch number to the bear number, attributing the drop to each input.</task>
<output_format>A three column table (pitch, base, bear) with EV, equity value, implied multiple. A bridge from pitch EV to bear EV by input. One line: how much of the headline is assumption, not business.</output_format>
<constraints>Use the data source and prior prompts. Bear inputs are defensible and conservative, not doom, each surviving an operator challenge in {{SECTOR}}.</constraints>

<role>You are an independent reviewer who did not build any of the above and trusts none of it until it ties.</role>
<task>Re-derive {{TARGET}}'s value a SECOND, independent way from the raw inputs, do not reuse the prompt 02 chain: an implied exit multiple cross check, a reverse DCF backing out the growth the price requires, or a comps and precedent triangulation. Then reconcile: does it land within a stated tolerance of the prompt 02 EV; do the top three leverage inputs still explain the pitch-to-bear gap; are there inputs in the memo that never appeared in the source model. If everything ties and no inputs are invented, print RECONCILED, else print NOT RECONCILED with every break. No downstream prompt writes the memo until this prints RECONCILED.</task>
<output_format>The second independent valuation, the tolerance, a reconciliation table, an invented-input check, and a single hard line: RECONCILED or NOT RECONCILED with the breaks.</output_format>
<review_gate>This is a hard stop. A human owns this gate. NOT RECONCILED means the model is wrong until proven otherwise. Nothing leaves the desk on a number that did not reconcile.</review_gate>
<constraints>Use the data source and prior prompts. The second method must be genuinely independent of the prompt 02 build. Never round a break away to force a tie.</constraints>

<role>You are the valuation desk lead preparing the one table the IC always asks to see.</role>
<task>Build a two-way sensitivity grid of {{HEADLINE_EV}} and implied equity value across {{WACC}} on one axis and {{TERMINAL_INPUT}} on the other, stepped in defensible increments for {{SECTOR}}. Mark the model's current cell. Shade the defensible region versus the region requiring heroic assumptions. State the range the IC should plan around, not a single point.</task>
<output_format>A WACC by terminal input grid of EV, the current cell marked, the defensible band, and one line: the honest value range for {{TARGET}}, not a false-precision point.</output_format>
<constraints>Use the data source and prior prompts, and only run after prompt 07 printed RECONCILED. Increments defensible for {{SECTOR}}. Never present a single point EV as if the grid did not exist.</constraints>

<role>You are the buy-side IC member writing the half page that decides the vote.</role>
<task>Write a one page memo on {{TARGET}} an IC can act on in the time it takes to read it: the headline number and {{DECISION}}, the single load bearing assumption from prompt 04 and why it carries the answer, the bear case from prompt 06 and the honest range from prompt 08, the one or two cells to attack in diligence with the question to put to the seller on each, and the reconciliation status from prompt 07. No hedging, no wall of caveats.</task>
<output_format>A one page memo: headline and decision, the assumption doing the lifting, the range, the attack list with a seller question per cell, the reconciliation line. Written for a partner, not an analyst.</output_format>
<constraints>Use the data source and prior prompts. Only write after prompt 07 printed RECONCILED. Every figure traces to a prior prompt. No invented inputs.</constraints>

<role>You are the deal lead who has to get the truth out of the seller without tipping your hand.</role>
<task>For each cell on the attack list from prompt 09, draft the diligence request and the exact question to the seller or management. Anticipate the answer they will give to defend the assumption and the follow up that pins them down. Cover the load bearing assumption, the terminal input, and the top revenue driver at minimum.</task>
<output_format>A diligence table: cell under attack, the request, the question to the seller, their likely defense, your follow up. Ordered by how much the cell moves the answer.</output_format>
<constraints>Use the data source and prior prompts. Questions must be answerable from real diligence. Label anything speculative.</constraints>

<role>You are the harshest reviewer in the firm, brought in to find what the attack itself missed.</role>
<task>Turn on the whole analysis. Did the attack over-index on one input and miss a second assumption quietly carrying the answer? Are any bear inputs too soft, letting the model off easy? Is the honest range wide because the business is genuinely uncertain or because the model is under-specified? What one thing, if the seller produced it in diligence, flips this from a walk to a deal or a deal to a walk? Then state whether the prompt 09 memo is safe to send as written, or the one revision it needs first.</task>
<output_format>A red team list of what the attack missed, a soft-bear check, a read on the range, the single diligence item that flips the decision, and a verdict: send as written, or the one fix required first.</output_format>
<review_gate>A named human owns the send decision. This prompt informs it, it does not make it.</review_gate>
<constraints>Use the data source and prior prompts. Be adversarial toward your own analysis, not just the seller's model.</constraints>