Reconciled p.14
Hiring-freeze scenario: Payroll cost
−6.8% vs. prior period
Use case
Headcount planning
Model roles, comp, and timing against the same reconciled actuals as the rest of the plan, so a hiring scenario flows straight into the P&L forecast instead of living in a disconnected roster spreadsheet.
Built on actuals already reconciled from
- PDF filings
- Bank statements
- ERP exports
- ZATCA e-invoices
- Excel schedules
The old roster
A headcount plan shouldn't live in a spreadsheet no one reconciles.
Payroll is often the single largest line in the plan, yet the roster behind it is rarely built from the same actuals as everything else it feeds.
- The hiring plan and the financial forecast live in two different tools that never reconcile with each other.
- One hiring assumption change means re-keying comp lines across every downstream tab by hand.
- HR's headcount count and finance's payroll forecast rarely close to the same number in the same period.
- A headcount cost line can't be traced back to the actual it was supposed to be built from.
One plan, tied to payroll
Change a hiring assumption, watch the P&L answer.
A guided walkthrough of a live headcount plan: every comp line on screen still carries its own citation.
Hiring costs flow straight into the P&L
Roles and comp are modeled against the same reconciled actuals base as the rest of the plan: a hiring scenario is never a side calculation.
Change one assumption, not ten tabs
State a hiring freeze, a build-out, or a comp change in plain language and every dependent cost line recomputes across the model, deterministically.
One roster, not a side spreadsheet
The headcount plan stays tied to the underlying model, so HR and finance are never reconciling two different counts after the fact.
Key features
Built for effective headcount planning
Hiring scenarios, not roster edits
Test a hiring freeze, an accelerated build-out, or a comp change in plain language: every dependent cost line recomputes against the same reconciled base case, never a detached copy.
62% Base case
38% Freeze
91% Build-out
One actuals base for the whole plan
Roles, comp, and timing model against the same reconciled actuals used everywhere else in the plan, never a disconnected headcount tab.
Comp figures, scoped to the right people
Role-based access keeps sensitive compensation figures visible only to the people who should see them.
Headcount cost, one line with the P&L
Add a new hire or move a start date and the payroll forecast recomputes in place: no separate roster, no manual splice.
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Not a rating. A chain.
Every headcount line in this plan can show its own proof.
- 1 Filed
- 2 Extracted
- 3 Reconciled
- 4 Cited
- 5 Exported
Reconciled p.9
FY2025 headcount plan vs. actual: Roster
+12.4% vs. prior period
Reconciled p.21
Comp rollup: Finance function
+5.3% vs. prior period
Keep exploring
Discover more use cases
HR & workforce planning
Workforce planning sits on the same governed definitions layer as the financial model, with role-based access scoping who sees sensitive comp figures.
See it in actionBudget planning & forecasting
Driver-based budgets and rolling forecasts built on actuals already reconciled to the ledger, so headcount cost lands in a plan that already ties out.
See it in actionThree financial statements
Income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow modeled together, so a headcount change flows correctly through all three, not just payroll.
See it in actionFrequently asked
Questions about headcount planning.
What makes a headcount plan "reconciled," rather than just entered?
Every actual behind the plan has already been checked against the printed subtotal on its source document. Headcount cost compares to that tied-out number, not a re-keyed one.
How is changing a hiring assumption different from editing a spreadsheet?
State the assumption in plain language (a freeze, an accelerated build-out, a comp change) and the deterministic engine recomputes every dependent cost line. There is no formula chain to rebuild by hand.
Does testing a hiring scenario overwrite the live plan?
No. Scenarios stay tied to the underlying reconciled base case, so a what-if recomputes on its own branch and never overwrites the roster everyone else is working from.
Can HR and finance work from the same headcount numbers?
Yes. Role-based access and one governed definitions layer mean HR and FP&A read the same headcount and comp figures instead of two different exports.
What HRIS or payroll systems does this connect to?
Integration depth is being extended system by system, so we describe it at a capability level for now. Excel, CSV, or PDF upload works standalone today, so headcount modeling can start before any live connection exists.
Can I just ask a question about the headcount plan instead of building a report?
The Analyst agent answers plain-language questions over your model and its cited actuals, retrieving the figure, running the calculation, and citing what it computed from.
Does this hold up across a large, multi-entity organization?
Per-organization isolation and role-based access scale across entities, and a consolidated headcount rolls up the same way the rest of the financial model does: each entity carries its own reconciliation trail before it rolls up.
Get started
Plan headcount on evidence, not a roster tab.
Book a walkthrough and we'll build a headcount plan from a sample of your own actuals: reconciled, cited, and ready to reforecast the moment a hiring assumption changes.