Most material errors are not formatting issues but breaks between sections: the technical design uses one capacity, the sales plan another, and the budget and schedule match neither.
A robust study traces every important number to its source and shows how a changed assumption affects budget, timing, cash flow and financing.
Unsupported market
Total industry size is treated as project demand, while competition, logistics and ramp-up are ignored. Define the serviceable segment, test pricing and channels, and link sales to capacity.
Incomplete CAPEX and utilities
Delivery, installation, design, utilities, contingency, working capital or pre-launch interest are omitted. Use a complete cost structure and one schedule.
Model and narrative disagree
Prices, volumes, staffing, dates and funding differ. Use one assumptions block, control checks and a change log.
Risks are only listed
The risk section has no effect on scenarios. Estimate likelihood and impact, define actions and test downside cash flow.
Final review
- every material figure has a source;
- capacity and utilisation agree;
- CAPEX covers the full investment period;
- schedule and funding are linked;
- working capital and tax are included;
- the downside changes cash flow;
- conclusions follow the calculations.
FAQ
Can editing alone fix the study?
Not when the issue is logic or source data; calculations and linked sections must be rebuilt.
Why is an optimistic case dangerous?
It hides additional funding needs and the risk of debt-service failure after normal deviations.
Is independent review useful?
For capital-intensive projects, a separate review of the model, technical assumptions and consistency is valuable.
Official sources and requirement checks
Requirements vary by project type and document recipient. Before work starts, confirm the current checklist with the lender, investor, zone management company or public authority.