AI Investment Case Workbook — BoardAgent Template

01 — OVERVIEW

Investment Overview

Total envelope · Strategic posture · Portfolio KPIs · AI investment intensity

TEMPLATE

How to use this workbook

Populate from /ai-invest-case session outputs. Replace all [PLACEHOLDER] fields with company-specific data. This workbook is the CFO meeting deliverable — run the session first, then populate here. Toggle PE-backed ownership above to reveal Section 9 (PE Exit Narrative).

Total Investment (3yr)

[€X]

All layers combined
Stage 1 request today: [€Y]

Tier 1 Return (3yr Base)

[€X]

Finance-validated claims only
Not blended with Tier 2 or 3

Portfolio Payback (Weighted)

[X] mo

Weighted by investment size
Base case scenario

3-Year ROI Multiple

[X.X]×

Tier 1 return ÷ total 3yr investment
Base case

Investment by Layer

Layer	3yr Investment	% of Total	Primary Return Metric
L1 AI Tools	[€]	[%]	Productivity / Cost reduction
L2 AI in Processes	[€]	[%]	Process cost / Revenue uplift
L3a Product AI	[€]	[%]	ARR / NRR / Exit multiple
L3b Delivery AI	[€]	[%]	Delivery gross margin
Total	[€Total]	100%	—

Strategic Posture Alignment

Defend Margins

Weight L1/L2; minimal L3a unless competitive parity requires

Benchmark: 60–70% L1+L2

Enable Growth

Balance L1/L2 Cat 2 + staged L3a; L3b for margin expansion

Benchmark: roughly balanced

Create New Revenue

Weight L3a/L3b; L1/L2 as operational foundation only

Benchmark: 60–70% L3a+L3b

Strategic Foundation

L1/L2 base build; L3a deferred pending data readiness

Benchmark: >70% L1+L2

Select strategic posture to validate portfolio allocation alignment.

AI Investment Intensity — Annual Spend as % of ARR

This portfolio: [X]% of ARR annually Update % above

0%2%4%6%8%+

Investment Posture	Annual AI / ARR	Signal
AI Leader	4–8%+	Offensive
Defender	2–4%	Parity
Laggard	<2%	At Risk

Source: A6 §8 investment architecture benchmarks

02 — INTERNAL AI

Internal AI Portfolio — L1 & L2

AI Tools (L1) + AI in Processes (L2) · Operational efficiency · Productivity · Cost reduction

L1 — AI Tools

[€]

[N] initiatives · Avg payback [X] months · Primarily OpEx · A6 §1

L2 — AI in Processes

[€]

[N] initiatives · Avg payback [X] months · Mixed CapEx/OpEx · A6 §1

Internal AI Initiative Register

Initiative	Layer	Y1 Investment	3yr Total	Tier	3yr Tier 1 Return	Payback	Gate
[Initiative Name]	L1	[€]	[€]	Tier 1	[€]	[X] mo	Quick Win
[Initiative Name]	L2	[€]	[€]	Tier 2	—	—	Strat. Bet
[Initiative Name]	L2	[€]	[€]	Tier 1	[€]	[X] mo	Quick Win
L1 + L2 Subtotal		[€]	[€]	—	[€]	—	—

Staircase Allocation — Internal AI

Stage 1 — Board Approval Today

[€X]

PoC budget · Max exposure before kill decisions · First kill date: [date]

Stage 2 — CFO/Mgmt Gate

[€X]

MVP budget · Requires Stage 1 evidence · Kill trigger: <50% of target improvement

Stage 3 — Annual Budget

[€X]

Scale budget · Conditional on Stage 2 metrics · Standard budget process

03 — PRODUCT AI

Product AI Portfolio — L3a

AI embedded in what the company sells · ARR trajectory · NRR cohort impact · Exit multiple bridge

L3a Investment (3yr)

[€]

CapEx-weighted · [N] product AI initiatives · IFRS 38 classification confirmed

AI-Influenced ARR (Year 3 Base)

[€]

Pricing uplift + NRR protection + win-rate improvement · Tier 1 when contracted

Net EV Impact (PE / Exit)

[€]

35% AI Winner premium on AI EBITDA · A6 §4 · JPMorgan / Capital IQ May 2026

Product AI Initiative Register

Feature / Initiative	Y1 Invest	AI ARR Y1	AI ARR Y2	AI ARR Y3	NRR Differential	GM Year 2	Payback
[AI Feature Name]	[€]	[€]	[€]	[€]	+[X]%	[Y]%	[Z] mo
[AI Feature Name]	[€]	[€]	[€]	[€]	+[X]%	[Y]%	[Z] mo
L3a Subtotal	[€]	[€]	[€]	[€]	—	—	—

NRR Cohort Impact

Cohort	Size (logos)	Base NRR	AI-Enhanced NRR	ARR Protected
AI-adopting (Year 2)	[N]	[%]	[%]	[€]
Non-adopting	[N]	[%]	—	—

ServiceNow Benchmark

ServiceNow AI module cohorts report ~40% higher renewal rates vs. non-AI customers. This portfolio's NRR differential of [X]% is [conservative / in line / above] this benchmark. Measurement design: [cohort comparison / A/B test] over [N] months.

Gross Margin Trajectory

Period	Gross Margin %	Inference Cost Total	Floor Status
Current	[%]	—	Baseline
Year 1	[%]	[€]	Monitor
Year 2	[%]	[€]	Target ≥65%
Year 3	[%]	[€]	Stabilized

Gross Margin Floor Rule

Year 1 GM <60%: requires pricing review or CTO inference optimization plan before GA. Year 3 GM <65%: CFO + CTO alignment required on inference cost roadmap. [CAIO → CFO]

04 — DELIVERY AI

Delivery AI Portfolio — L3b

AI in service delivery · Revenue per delivery FTE · Delivery gross margin improvement (bps)

L3b Investment (3yr)

[€]

Mixed CapEx/OpEx · [N] delivery AI initiatives

Revenue per Delivery FTE (Year 2)

[€]

Baseline: [€] · Improvement: [+X]% · A6 benchmark: 20–35%

Delivery GM Improvement (Year 2)

[+X] bps

A6 benchmark: 200–350 bps at mature deployment

Delivery AI Initiative Register

Initiative	Y1 Invest	Rev/FTE Improvement	Capacity Freed	GM Uplift (bps)	Tier	3yr EBITDA	Payback
[Initiative Name]	[€]	+[X]%	[N] FTE-eq.	+[X] bps	T1 Path B	[€]	[X] mo
[Initiative Name]	[€]	+[X]%	[N] FTE-eq.	+[X] bps	T2 → T1	—	—
L3b Subtotal	[€]	—	—	—	—	[€]	—

Benchmark Calibration — A6 §3

Metric	A6 Benchmark Range	This Case (Base)	Assessment
Revenue per FTE improvement	20–35%	[X]%	Within range
Delivery GM improvement	200–350 bps	[X] bps	Within range
Payback period	9–18 months	[X] mo	Within range

Replace tags with actual assessment: Green = within range; Amber = outside range but justified (state reason); Red = requires input review before CFO submission.

05 — THREE-TIER ROI

Three-Tier ROI Summary

Per-initiative declaration · Finance-validated Tier 1 only · Tier 2 capacity separated · Tier 3 strategic named

Three-Tier Discipline

Tier 1: Cost leaves P&L or revenue enters — Finance-validated. Tier 2: Capacity created — quantified in hours/FTE-equivalent, not in NPV, unless a documented conversion formula links it to Tier 1. Tier 3: Strategic value — competitive positioning, moat, optionality. Never blend tiers in a headline number. The CFO will disaggregate it.

Tier 1 — Financial Return

[€X]

3yr base · Finance-validated P&L claims only · [N] initiatives · Appears in NPV and payback

Tier 2 — Capacity Created

[N] FTE-eq.

Not in NPV · [X,000] hrs/year · Conversion formula documented for [N] initiatives

Tier 3 — Strategic Value

[N] items

Competitive positioning · Compliance readiness · First-mover optionality · Not in NPV

Initiative-Level Tier Declaration

Initiative	Layer	Tier	Evidence Required	P&L Line	Measurement Method	Finance Agreed
[Name]	L1	Tier 1	HR-confirmed headcount reduction	Personnel costs	Pre/post P&L	Yes
[Name]	L2	Tier 2	Conversion formula pending	Not in P&L yet	Hours recovered	Pending
[Name]	L3a	Tier 1	AI pricing uplift — contracted	ARR expansion	Cohort NRR comparison	Pending
[Name]	L3b	Tier 1	Delivery margin improvement	Gross margin	Pre/post delivery GM%	Yes

[CAIO → CFO] — Mandatory Before Board Paper

Any initiative with "Pending" in the Finance Agreed column must be reclassified to Tier 3 (or removed from the NPV) until Finance sign-off is obtained. Do not present a Tier 1 claim in the board paper without confirmed Finance alignment.

06 — CASH FLOW

36-Month Portfolio Cash Flow

J-curve · Cumulative net position · Stage gate markers · Payback month

J-Curve — Present It Explicitly

Year 1 is investment-heavy with low returns (adoption ramp, PoC costs). Year 2 approaches breakeven. Year 3 shows structural improvement. The J-curve is the expected shape of a properly structured AI investment. Hiding it creates a credibility gap — present it directly and frame it as a discipline signal, not a weakness.

Monthly Net Cash Position — Portfolio Base Case · Replace bar heights with session output values

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16✓

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Net negative (investment exceeds returns) Net positive (returns exceed investment) 16✓ = Payback month (base case template) Actual payback month: [Month X]

Scenario Summary

Scenario	Year 1 Net Cash	Payback Month	3yr NPV	3yr ROI Multiple
Conservative	[€]	Month [X]	[€]	[X.X]×
Base	[€]	Month [X]	[€]	[X.X]×
Upside	[€]	Month [X]	[€]	[X.X]×

07 — COST OF INACTION

Cost of Inaction

Monthly delay cost · Competitive capability gap · Data compounding · Regulatory timeline

Component 1 — Competitive Gap

[€/mo]

Monthly revenue at risk or cost disadvantage vs. AI-deploying competitors

Component 2 — Data Compounding

[€/mo]

Retrospective data cleanup costs 20–40% more than live capture · Irreversible delay cost

Component 3 — Regulatory Timeline

[€/mo]

Emergency compliance = 3–5× planned cost · Applies where EU AI Act deadline is relevant

Monthly Cost of Inaction — Total

[€X,000/mo]

Component 1 ([€]) + Component 2 ([€]) + Component 3 ([€])

"This program costs €[total investment] over [N] months. The monthly cost of inaction is €[CoI]. At the current decision timeline of [estimated lag] months, we are accumulating €[CoI × months] in inaction cost before the first system goes live. This inaction cost is certain — the ROI from the investment is the scenario with risk."

Competitive Scenario Sensitivity

Scenario	Competitor Lead	Monthly CoI	12-Month Inaction Cost	Data Cleanup Premium
Conservative	6 months ahead	[€]	[€]	+20%
Base	12 months ahead	[€]	[€]	+30%
Adverse	18 months ahead	[€]	[€]	+40%

08 — BOARD CHECKLIST

Board Investment Decision Checklist

Financial · Governance · Organizational · Portfolio governance · RAG status — click dots to cycle

Checklist Protocol

Click each dot to cycle: Grey (not assessed) → Green (confirmed) → Amber (in progress — resolve before board) → Red (not started — blocks submission). A Red item is a reason to pause, not proceed. Resolve every Red before submitting the board paper.

Financial Readiness

All Tier 1 claims Finance-validated (or explicitly reclassified to Tier 3)

[CAIO → CFO] mandatory item

CapEx/OpEx classification confirmed for all CapEx items

IFRS 38 compliance confirmed with CFO and auditor

EBITDA bridge P&L lines named and agreed with CFO

Named cost/revenue line per initiative — not generic "efficiency gains"

PE add-back — not applicable (standalone ownership)

Attribution methodologies documented and agreed with Finance pre-deployment

Governance Readiness

EU AI Act risk classification confirmed for all high-risk-candidate use cases

A4 compliance program — classification complete

DPIA completed for any AI system processing personal data

CISO security review complete for agentic AI or external-data-processing initiatives

Legal MSA review for client-facing delivery AI (L3b) — contract implications confirmed

[CAIO → CFO] status confirmed before GA deployment

Organizational Readiness

Works council notification status confirmed (DACH ≥5% headcount reduction)

§111 BetrVG Betriebsänderung threshold — mandatory before announcement

Change management budget confirmed (≥15% of technical cost L1/L2; ≥20% for L3b delivery)

Named initiative owner for each initiative — individual, not team

Named owner = kill criteria enforcement accountability

Portfolio Governance

Kill criteria set per initiative: specific metric + threshold + named decision authority

Staircase approval confirmed — board approves Stage 1 only today

Stage 2/3 require separate approvals with evidence gates

Maximum Stage 1 cash exposure stated explicitly in the board paper

Portfolio review cadence confirmed — first gate review date set

A2 §4: quarterly gate review cadence

Submission Gate

Do not submit the board paper with any Red item. Red items represent known governance gaps — and boards that approve AI investments with known gaps create more risk than the gap itself. Resolve all Red items, then submit.

09 — PE EXIT NARRATIVE

PE Exit Narrative

VCP lever mapping · EBITDA bridge Y0–Y3 · AI Winner evidence · Exit multiple impact

PE-BACKED ONLY

PE Framing Principle

PE sponsors evaluate AI investment on two axes: (1) EBITDA bridge — does this program contribute structurally to Year 3 EBITDA? (2) Multiple expansion — does this program create AI Winner credentials that lift the exit multiple (~35% EV/EBITDA premium)? Both must be addressed. Neither alone is sufficient. Source: A6 §4 — JPMorgan / Capital IQ, May 2026.

VCP Lever Mapping

Lever 1

EBITDA Expansion

L1 cost reduction + L2 Cat 1 efficiency + L3b delivery margin. Appears in P&L as cost reduction and gross margin uplift.
Initiatives: [list]

EBITDA contribution Y3:
[€X]

EV at exit [Nx]:
[€X]

Lever 2

Growth Acceleration

L3a AI ARR + L2 Cat 2 revenue enhancement. Appears in ARR growth and NRR. Drives top-line at exit.
Initiatives: [list]

AI-influenced ARR Y3:
[€X]

EV at ARR multiple:
[€X]

Lever 3

Multiple Expansion

AI Winner credential — measurable AI ARR + cohort NRR + operating model evidence. ~35% EV/EBITDA premium if evidence is built.
Evidence required: [list]

Multiple uplift:
35% on AI EBITDA base

Incremental EV:
[€X]

3-Year EBITDA Bridge

Year	Base EBITDA	AI Contribution	AI Investment Cost	Net EBITDA
Year 0 (Current)	[€]	—	—	[€]
Year 1	[€]	+[€]	−[€]	[€] ↓ J-curve
Year 2	[€]	+[€]	−[€]	[€] → Approaching breakeven
Year 3	[€]	+[€]	−[€]	[€] ↑ Structural improvement

A6 benchmark: 300–800 bps EBITDA improvement from a well-executed 3-year AI program. Year 1 J-curve is expected and should be stated explicitly in the board paper — not hidden.

AI Winner Evidence Checklist (at Exit)

AI-influenced ARR >[X]% of total ARR — measurable pricing uplift or add-on contracted

AI-cohort NRR improvement measured and documented (not projected) — cohort data available

EBITDA contribution from AI program attributable and measurable (not blended into general P&L)

AI operating model evidence: CAIO role, portfolio governance structure, review cadence documented

PE EBITDA add-back documentation ready for buyer DD — non-recurring classification agreed

No AI washing exposure — all AI claims in CIM backed by measured outcomes, not projections

Exit Multiple Impact Summary

Scenario	EBITDA at Exit (Y3)	Multiple	Enterprise Value	vs. No-AI Baseline
No-AI baseline	[€]	[Nx]	[€]	—
With AI (EBITDA uplift only)	[€]	[Nx]	[€]	+[€]
With AI Winner premium (+35%)	[€]	[1.35×Nx]	[€]	+[€]
Net EV creation vs. 3yr AI investment cost			EV uplift [€] − AI investment [€] = Net [€]

Multiple Availability Condition

The 35% AI Winner premium requires measured evidence at exit — AI ARR, cohort NRR data, and operating model proof. If this evidence is not built during the hold period, the premium is not available to the exit narrative. Buyer DD will find the gap and discount accordingly. Start measuring at Stage 1.