Scenario planning
Most plans assume one future. Reality rarely cooperates. Scenario planning maps the range of outcomes ahead of the meeting — base, upside and downside — so the board can see where the business is exposed and where it has room to move. Alfred builds those scenarios from your real numbers, makes the assumptions explicit, and shows what each one means for cash, hiring and growth.
What's the difference between a base case and a stress test?
**The base case** is your most likely plan: the budget and forecast you'd actually run on, built on realistic assumptions. It's the reference everything else is measured against — clear, defensible and the version the board signs off. Its limit is that it describes one path, and the future rarely follows a single line.
**A stress test** pushes the same model to its limits: what happens if revenue slips, a key hire slows, or runway tightens? It surfaces the breaking points and the levers you'd actually pull. It demands more judgement to read, but it's what turns a forecast into a plan the board can trust under pressure.
You need both. The base case sets the plan; the stress tests show how robust it is.
What you get
Scenario modelling
Base, upside and downside cases built from your actuals — with the assumptions behind each one written out, not buried.
Sensitivity & stress tests
Move the key drivers — growth, churn, hiring, pricing — and Alfred shows how each one ripples through cash and runway.
Runway & cash views
A clear read on cash and runway under each scenario, with the month you'd need to act flagged well before it arrives.
Board-ready summary
The scenarios distilled into a one-page summary the board can absorb in a minute — with Alfred's recommendation made plain.
Audit-ready workings
Every number traces back to a source and an assumption, so a sharp board member can follow the logic — no black boxes.
Live re-runs
When the numbers change, ask Alfred to re-run the scenarios — your view stays current between board meetings, not just on the day.
How Alfred works
- 1. Phase
Frame the question
First, what decision is this for? A raise, a hiring plan, a pricing change? Alfred clarifies the question and the time horizon, because the scenarios you build for a fundraise are different from the ones you build for next quarter's budget.
- 2. Phase
Set the assumptions
Good scenarios live or die on their assumptions. Alfred proposes a sensible base case from your actuals, then you agree the few drivers that matter most — and it keeps them explicit so the board can challenge them directly.
- 3. Phase
Build the scenarios
Alfred builds out the base, upside and downside cases and the stress tests around them — showing the impact on revenue, cash and runway, and flagging the points where the plan would need to change.
- 4. Phase
Review & refine
You review the scenarios and push on the assumptions. Alfred re-runs them on the spot, so by the time it reaches the board the numbers are settled and the debate is about the decision, not the maths.
- 5. Phase
Present & keep current
Alfred packages the scenarios into a board-ready summary and the full workings behind it. When the numbers move, ask it to re-run — your view stays current between meetings, not just on the day.
Who is this for?
Founders raising capital
Walk into a raise with credible base, upside and downside cases — and answer the hard "what if" questions before investors ask them.
CEOs managing runway
Know exactly when cash gets tight under each case — and which levers (hiring, spend, pricing) buy the most runway, well in advance.
Boards weighing big bets
A new market, an acquisition, a step-change in spend — see the range of outcomes and the downside risk before committing.
Operators planning hiring
Test a hiring plan against revenue scenarios before you commit headcount — and see how aggressive you can afford to be.
What does it cost?
Standard scenario set
2.000–5.000€
base, upside and downside, board-ready
Full stress-test model
3.000–8.000€
sensitivities and multiple stress cases
Why Pennyworth Co?
FAQs
How many scenarios should a board actually see?
Usually three: a base case, an upside and a downside. More than that and the signal gets lost. Alfred builds the core set and keeps deeper sensitivities in the appendix, so the board sees the range without drowning in variants.
How does Alfred make the assumptions auditable?
Every scenario states its assumptions up front and every number traces back to a source. A board member can follow the chain from a headline figure to the driver behind it — nothing is hidden in a formula, and you can challenge any input directly.
Can Alfred update the scenarios as the numbers change?
Yes — that's a core strength. Because Alfred holds your model and assumptions, you can re-run every scenario the moment actuals land or a key input shifts. Your view of runway and risk stays current between board meetings, not frozen on the day you built it.
Do we need a finance team to use it?
No. Alfred does the modelling for you — you bring the numbers and the decision, it builds the scenarios and explains them in plain language. Founders without a CFO use it exactly the same way a finance team would.
