A staged advisory model designed to preserve independence, analytical rigour, and decision credibility.
An independent diagnostic documenting how your current FX settlement architecture actually works — and where costs, risks, and complexity are structurally created.
This engagement establishes a clear, defensible view of the current state before any decisions are made.
Purpose: To give finance leaders a documented, decision-ready understanding of the present system that can withstand audit, board, and regulatory scrutiny.
A provider-neutral specification defining what any future treasury solution must be capable of — based strictly on Tier 1 findings.
This engagement translates documented issues into clear requirements without selecting vendors or managing implementation.
Purpose: To allow internal teams to evaluate options confidently, using their own procurement processes, with a clear, defensible requirements baseline.
Documents what exists and why it behaves the way it does
Defines what would need to change to address documented issues
Neither tier sells, selects, or implements solutions
This separation preserves independence and prevents vendor-led decision-making.
Two distinct support paths
Independent support after Tier 2, delivered through two clearly separated paths: episodic decision assessment and ongoing governance monitoring. ADSP preserves independence by separating decision review from continuous oversight.
Choose based on governance needs. Most organisations only realise they need this support after the first post-diagnostic decision creates downstream complexity.
Independent assessment of a specific treasury architecture decision when it arises.
Access model: Delivered on demand. Requires prior Tier 2 completion. This path is used only when a formal decision needs independent assessment.
Ongoing independent oversight of your treasury architecture to ensure changes do not silently degrade cost, control, or governance.
This path exists even when no active decisions are being made.
(Included within Governance Monitoring or available standalone)
A structured refresh comparing current architecture to the original documented baseline.
Program Notes: ADSP is accessed through either Decision Assessment (episodic) or Governance Monitoring (ongoing). These paths are deliberately separated to preserve independence, clarity, and governance integrity. All ADSP work is advisory only and requires completion of Tier 1 or Tier 2.
A UK-based business processes £18M annually across three banks and two PSPs following several acquisitions. FX costs appear to be increasing, but finance leadership cannot reconcile total FX cost or explain variance to the audit committee.
Before evaluating new providers or renegotiating rates, the organisation commissions a Settlement Architecture Diagnostic to document how FX execution, approval, settlement, and reconciliation currently operate — and where costs and control risks are structurally created.
The resulting documentation provides a defensible baseline for internal decision-making, procurement evaluation, and board discussion — without recommending vendors or implementations.
Without a documented view of how FX costs and controls are structurally created:
Architecture decisions lack a defensible foundation
Provider evaluations lack independent foundation
Governance discussions become opinion-led
Audit and board scrutiny intensifies after decisions are made
Our engagements exist to prevent this.
We use only essential cookies required for this website to function properly. We do not use tracking, analytics, or advertising cookies. By continuing to use this site, you consent to our use of essential cookies. Learn more in our Privacy Policy.