B
Board BookQuarterly Standard Package
Example · demo data, not live
Generated
‹ Executive suite
Confidential · For the Board of Directors

Q2 FY27 Board Package · Acme Cloud Inc.

Quarterly operating & financial review — prepared for the Board Chair and institutional investors.

Sourced from NetSuite · Salesforce · Carta — reconciled 06:14 ET Definitions unchanged from Q1 FY27 ✓ consistency check passed p. 3 of 14
01

Headline Metrics

AI · 3 flagged for discussion
ARR & YoY Growth
$23.1M
▲ 42% YoY · +$6.8M added LTM
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
$16.3M → $18.0M → $20.4M → $23.1M
Benchmark · stage bandIn band
0%healthy 30–50%100%
2026 stage-appropriate growth band auto-sourced; you are at 42%, upper third of band.
Net Revenue Retention
118%
▲ 4 pts QoQ · gross retention 94%
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
110% → 112% → 114% → 118%
Benchmark · retentionNear elite
90healthy ≥100elite ≥120
Marker just shy of elite (120%) — Enterprise expansion is the lever.
Burn Multiple
0.9×
▼ from 1.3× · net new ARR / net burn
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
1.3× → 1.1× → 1.0× → 0.9× (lower is better)
Benchmark · efficiencyGreen
ideal <1.0×2.0×+
Inside the "amazing" band — capital efficiency improving four quarters running.
02

Capital Efficiency

Rule of 40 — composite
54
growth 42 + FCF margin 12
growth 42+12
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
44 → 47 → 50 → 54 · FCF margin turned positive
Benchmark · ≥40 targetClears
0target ≥4080
14 points above target. Click strip › growth-vs-margin trade-off.
Magic Number
1.2
▲ healthy >1.0 efficient growth
CAC Payback
11 mo
▲ under target <12 mo
Gross Margin
81%
▲ above floor ≥75% SaaS
03

ARR Bridge — The Leaky Bucket

How $18.0M became $23.1M

Click any bar for churn detail ›
Net ARR movement, Q1 → Q2 FY27. New & expansion in green; churn in red.
$18.0M
Starting
ARR
+$6.1M
New
logos
+$4.2M
Expansion
−$4.2M
Contraction
−$1.0M
Gross
churn
$23.1M
Ending
ARR
04

Liquidity & Trajectory

Cash, Burn & Runway

Liquidity position at quarter close.
Ending cash
$14.2M
Monthly burn
−$0.45M
Runway
31 mo
Runway extends 4 months QoQ as net burn narrows; no raise required inside the plan horizon.

Quarterly Trend Sparkstrip

At-a-glance 4-quarter trajectory beside each headline.
ARR
$23.1M
NRR
118%
EBITDA
$0.71M
Runway
31 mo
05

Financials — Actual vs Plan vs Prior

AI · variance explained per row

Q2 FY27 P&L summary

Click any row for budget-variance bridge ›
Figures in $M unless noted. Variance = Actual vs Plan.
Line itemActualPlanVar %Prior
Revenue5.955.70+4.4%5.10
Gross profit4.824.56+5.7%4.08
Operating expense4.104.22−2.8%3.94
— Sales & marketing2.262.40−5.8%2.18
— Research & dev1.181.16+1.7%1.02
EBITDA0.710.62+14.5%0.31
06

Board Narrative — AI Draft

AI Generated

CEO commentary — ready to edit & export

NRR rose 4 points to 118% on Enterprise expansion of $4.2M, partially offset by SMB churn of $180K; gross retention held at 94%. Rule of 40 improved to 54 as FCF margin turned positive (+12), and burn multiple tightened to 0.9× — capital efficiency is now four quarters into a clean downtrend.

EBITDA beat plan by 14.5% on disciplined S&M spend (−5.8% to plan) while R&D ran marginally hot to fund the AI platform. Runway extended to 31 months; no financing event is contemplated within the FY27–FY29 plan. Two items merit board airtime: the path from 118% → 120% NRR, and R&D pacing against the platform roadmap.

Field Guide

Read this page like a board member

How to use this package

  • Decisions it drives: approve the quarter, decide whether to raise, and pick the 2–3 metrics worth board airtime. The AI "flag for discussion" pre-marks them so the meeting opens on substance, not setup.
  • Watch first: the Burn Multiple and Rule of 40 strips — together they tell you in two numbers whether growth is being bought efficiently. Everything else is downstream of those.
  • Reading a bullet bar: the gray block is the stage-appropriate healthy range, the darker block (where present) is elite, and the navy ▲ marker is "you are here." Marker inside or right of the band = on track.
  • How the AI helps: every financial row carries an auto-generated variance explanation, the narrative drafts itself from the metrics, and a consistency check warns if any metric definition drifted from last quarter — so the package stays comparable QoQ.
  • For your own org: if you handed a stranger only the ARR leaky-bucket and the burn multiple, could they tell whether this quarter was good — without any commentary? If not, your headline strip is missing a metric.

Watch the walkthrough

Four AI agents walk this dashboard.

In context — peer & market read

Sample feed
$23.1MYour ARR vs Series-C SaaS median ($21.4M)+8%
118%NRR vs top-quartile cohort (115%)+3 pts
0.9×Burn multiple vs peer median (1.4×)−0.5×
11 moCAC payback vs benchmark (14 mo)−3 mo
42%YoY growth vs stage cohort (38%)+4 pts
4.1%SaaS index — public multiples, 30-day+4.1%
Illustrative — wire to your benchmarking feed (e.g. Standard Metrics, Carta peer data, or a public-comp index).