Skip to content

Euroports Feedback - 2026-04-15

TL;DR

Matthias validated the v0 bridging direction strongly. Top-of-page variance flags, category mapping UI, and variance drill-down all resonate. Key asks for future iterations: entity-level drill-down with groups, commentary capture in Palm, forecast accuracy scoreboard per entity, and factoring customer-level drill-down.

Overall Sentiment
Direction validated Yes
Stage shown Skateboard
Ready for next stage Needs more iteration on drill-down + entity views
Blocker for them? No (directional feedback for ongoing build)

Source

  • Transcript: 2026-04-15-bridging-prototype.md
  • Date: 2026-04-15
  • Participants: Matthias Depoorter (Treasury Manager, Euroports), Emma Sjöström, Gurjit Pannu
  • Context: Prototype demo session. Emma walked through v0 bridging UI. Matthias also screen-shared his current Excel bridge + board presentation format.

This Iteration: Validation

What Matthias validated about the current v0 direction:

  • Top-of-page variance flags — "I think that makes sense, taking into account that we're actually focusing on the working capital. That's basically the working capital items. But I think that's correct, just to have that."
  • Category mapping UI (indirect bucket → direct Palm categories with amounts) — "Yeah, I think it would be [helpful]. And then basically having the drill-down capabilities."
  • Drill-down on variance figures — confirmed the pattern of consolidated variance → driving transactions is right. "The variances should be pointing me to somewhere."
  • Using categorized transactional data as the v0 data source — "I think that will help because that will basically be the same thing as I'm doing now. The higher level of granularity in it. Doesn't need to be perfect from day one."

Important Nuances

  • The bridge target shape is Matthias' existing "Cash flow analysis CA vs BU" tab — columns for Actual, Last Estimate, Previous Estimate, Prior Year, Budget, by quarter. Commentary free-text box captured per-row today.
  • EBITDA + EBITDA adjustments come from budget directly (no direct equivalent). Working capital rows are where bridging matters.
  • Row-level mapping is not 1:1 — Matthias combines budget line items where one transaction covers multiple (e.g., finance lease capital + interest arrive as one payment).
  • "Other working capital" (accruals) is the hardest bucket — that's where the "lengthy interview process" with local entities happens today.
  • Budget bucket → Palm category mapping must be configurable — the current Cash Analytics categories Matthias is using are placeholder, will change based on the categorization workshop.

Future Iterations: Suggestions

High Value

  • Entity-level drill-down with group hierarchy — "What would be helpful is if you go from consolidated to entity level and then ultimately transaction level." Sub-consolidation groups needed (Italy = 2 entities, Belgium = 6, Holdings = 5-6). Ties to access rights segregation (Germany can't see French view).
  • Commentary capture in Palm — replace the Excel free-text box. Matthias + Evelyn add comments per variance; comments flow into board report. "If that's not possible, it would be me joining a Word doc or something like that."
  • Report-ready board output — quarterly view matching existing board deck structure, so Matthias doesn't have to manually copy tables into PowerPoint.
  • Forecast accuracy scoreboard per entity — "The CFO wants to know which entities are doing well... some entities will present to the CFO, these are doing a good job, these are not." Educational tool for local entities to self-correct.
  • Largest transactions next to each variance — "On notable variances, have already some information there. If supplier payments minus 3.3 million, it would be worthwhile saying, there is a large transaction to [vendor]."

Medium Value

  • Version locking of forecasts — next forecast cycle compares against the previously-communicated version (not just budget). Matthias' board deck already shows "Last Estimate" + "Previous Estimate" side by side.
  • Target overlays on local entity forecasts — manual overlay capability for cases where local entities systematically under/overestimate (AP people biased toward overestimating payments).
  • Factoring customer-level drill-down — from entity-level factoring % → which customers drove the change. Requires AR data + ABN factor data reconciliation (~50% of AR globally factored).
  • Structural/stable/unfavorable variance classification — bucket variances by type, not just by amount.

Longer Term

  • AI-assisted variance commentary — auto-suggest explanations based on driving transactions. User selects which commentary to promote into the board report. "Something similar where you have a section giving you all the commentary, you select pieces to transfer into a report."
  • Chatbot (Pulse) over the bridge data — answer "why is supplier payments −3.3M in Q1?" interactively.
  • AR/AP balance trending + DSO/DPO — once AR/AP data is ingested, surface daily run rates and trends to local entities.

Questions Asked

  • Budget by entity or consolidated only? → Both. Consolidated view for board; entity-level needed for local teams. Sub-consolidation (country groups) is the working unit.
  • How does factoring process work today? → Entities upload invoices daily via "The Basics" tool → ABN accepts/rejects (credit-insurer limits, age penalty) → daily payout. Booking nets trade receivables + factoring advances + SPV.
  • How do you currently track factoring by customer? → "Honestly, we don't." Only entity-level factoring % visible. Data is in PDFs from the factor, needs scripts to extract.
  • How do you have accuracy conversations today? → Emails the Excel out and asks for feedback. Finland complacent (matches budget); Spain deflects ("it's the business").

Raw Feedback Quotes

"What I'm hoping for is to get that granular data... we should be able to split that up saying, it's not really Revenue in general, it's storage revenue or thermal handling collections." — Matthias

"For me, what I need to answer is always: what's the working capital deviation? What's driving that?" — Matthias

"What the board is looking for is actually explanations that are cash driven. And this is the difficulty. That's the complexity of bridging a world which is booking based versus a purely cash pay." — Matthias

"Depending on who does a forecast, their personal bias influences that. If somebody from AP is doing it, obviously they overestimate payments because they want to make those payments." — Matthias

"It's much more than purely a cash flow forecasting tool. It's also an educational tool, at least for the local entities." — Matthias

"This is more than enough validation for us to keep going in this direction." — Emma

"That sounds great. Will save a lot of work for me. Reprogram the Excel errors I'm having." — Matthias

Action Items

  • [ ] Palm: incorporate Matthias' IT/accounting Friday meeting feedback on AR/AP data availability
  • [ ] Palm: categorization workshop with Giannis — define bank category → budget bucket mapping
  • [ ] Palm: explore ABN factor data ingestion (platform scrape vs API vs internal SFTP)
  • [ ] Palm: follow-up session with Matthias in ~1-1.5 weeks with v0 progress
  • [ ] Palm: test Pulse chatbot on bridge concept (load mapping temporarily, see if commentary queries work)