The board deck says ARR is $42 million. The data room says $46 million. The CFO's email from last week implies something in between. Same company, same quarter, three numbers — and the one that ends up in your report is whichever you happened to copy first.
Each figure was true when it was written. The deck was built in March, the data room updated in April, the email fired off between meetings. Nobody lied. Nobody reconciled, either. This is not a rare edge case; it is the normal state of private-markets information, where the same fact lives in a dozen documents that were never designed to agree.
The quiet failure mode
The danger is not the wrong number. The danger is choosing one silently. A tool that simply answers — that returns “$44 million” in a confident tone with no history — hides the disagreement instead of surfacing it. You discover the gap in the investment committee meeting when someone opens a different file, or you never discover it at all, and it flows into an LP report with your name on it.
Naruqqum flags, it does not guess
When Naruqqum finds the same fact stated two ways, it shows you both — with the source behind each — and marks the conflict for review. It will tell you that ARR reads $42M in the Q2 deck and $46M in the data room, and it will leave the reconciliation to you. It never quietly picks a winner, because the disagreement is exactly the thing you needed to know.
Why this matters more in private markets
These numbers do not stay internal. They go to the investment committee, to auditors, to limited partners who read carefully and remember. A figure you can trace to its source is defensible. A figure you copied from whichever tab was open is a liability that surfaces at the worst possible moment. Provenance is not paperwork here; it is the difference between a number you can stand behind and one you are hoping nobody checks.
Catch it before it ships
The reconciliation still takes judgment — you decide which source is authoritative and why. But you cannot reconcile a conflict you never saw. The value is in surfacing the disagreement while it is still a question, and not after it has hardened into a slide.