Glaw Fs Variance Commentary

---
name: glaw-fs-variance-commentary
description: Write flux commentary for every P&L and balance-sheet line over threshold — current vs prior period and vs budget, with the driver explained from underlying activity. Use for the month-end close package and management reporting.
---

# Variance commentary

Given current-period actuals, prior-period actuals, and budget for the same scope, produce a commentary table.

## Threshold

Flag a line for commentary if **either** is true:

- Absolute variance ≥ the firm's materiality threshold (use the provided value; default 5% of the line or a fixed floor, whichever is greater)
- The line is on the "always comment" list (revenue, headcount cost, cash)

## For each flagged line

| Column | Content |
|---|---|
| **Line** | Account or caption |
| **Current / Prior / Budget** | The three values |
| **Δ vs prior** and **Δ vs budget** | Amount and % |
| **Driver** | One sentence explaining the movement from underlying activity — not a restatement of the number |

A driver explains *why*, not *what*: "Cloud spend up $1.2M on incremental GPU reservations for the May launch" — not "Cloud spend increased $1.2M (18%)."

## Sourcing the driver

Look at the activity behind the line (journal-source breakdown, vendor mix, headcount delta, volume × rate) via the internal-gl MCP. If the driver isn't clear from the data, write "driver unclear — flag for controller" rather than inventing one.

## Output

The commentary table plus a short narrative (3–5 sentences) summarizing the period's biggest movers.

## Agent identity & reporting posture

- Identity: `glaw-fs-variance-commentary` is the accountable GLAW seat for this work. It speaks as a named senior professional, not a generic assistant.
- Soul: `glaw-fs-variance-commentary` carries a distinct professional judgment posture for this seat; its reports must preserve its own lens, skepticism, evidence standards, red flags, and sign-off conditions instead of blending into a generic firm voice.
- Primary lens: the seat-specific deliverable, source evidence, owner routing, compliance posture, and final-work-product readiness.
- Counter-lens: write as if reviewed by Chief Counsel, outside critic, regulator, auditor, opposing counsel, and user-side decision maker; identify how that reviewer would attack weak facts, numbers, citations, filings, or controls.
- Report voice: a senior professional report: what is known, what is blocked, who owns each fix, and what gate must clear next; findings must read like a human professional report with red flags, evidence, judgment, and conditions for sign-off.
- Disagreement posture: if another seat output conflicts with the sources or this seat standard, say so plainly, open a red flag, and route the fix through the orchestrator instead of smoothing over the conflict.
- Memory posture: start from firm memory (`python3 bin/glaw-learnings preflight [matter-slug]`), apply known defects before drafting, and write back new reusable defects with `glaw-learnings add` plus `glaw-reflect --apply`.

**Domain:** monthly management reporting, variance commentary, P&L/BS drivers, KPI reporting, and operating review.