Reviews
What cohorts say after the mock audit
Voices below reference specific modules from R&D Expense Audit Mastery and our Desk Pair workshops. Length and tone vary on purpose.
★★★★★
Module 2’s ticket-to-pool mapping exposed how our “platform” bucket swallowed unrelated support work. We split it before anything touched the auditing app.
Priya N. · Head of Finance, SaaS billing
Decent pace. The mock clarification in week five was tougher than our last external call. I still think Module 1 could use a shorter primer for engineers new to R&D language.
Ken · Tsuen Wan
★★★★☆
Rated 4/5 on our internal LMS after Desk Pair. Finance finally stopped asking for “innovation adjectives” and started asking for commit ranges.
Platform-style review · internal L&D score
We came for the Narrative Labs add-on. Instructors cut three paragraphs that sounded confident but had no ticket trail. Mildly bruising, useful.
Client in health-tech product
Case note · Mid-size product studio
A 90-person Hong Kong studio entered Audit Trail with scattered contractor invoices and a single spreadsheet tab labeled “R&D maybe.” After Module 4’s export pack dry run, they produced a reviewer folder with pool definitions, sample tickets, and a narrative that admitted two projects were out of scope.
Their follow-up clarification list shrank from fourteen questions (prior year) to six. They did not attribute the change to magic tooling — they pointed to earlier evidence habits and the decision to exclude weak projects.
Case note · Finance lead joining late
A controller joined mid-cohort after a reorganization. Pairing with an engineering manager on Module 3’s clinic let them rebuild one claim story in eight days. The limitation: multi-entity cost sharing still required their external advisor; Softwareml Digital only helped them present the shared engineering record cleanly.