Why We Are Publishing This Before We Have Customers
Last updated: November 11, 2026
Aurgus is in its pre-client period. No one has been using this for two years and can call you to describe the experience. If you become a client, you are the first. We are publishing this explicitly because the alternative — implying a track record that does not exist — would be the wrong way to start a client relationship.
If you have read the methodology, the evaluation guide, and the internal business case — and your next question is “who else is using this?” — this article is for you. The question is a reasonable one. It is also the question that most software companies avoid. We are not going to avoid it.
The honest answer
Aurgus is in its pre-client period. No one has been using this for two years and can call you to describe the experience. If you become a client, you are the first.
We are publishing this explicitly because the alternative — writing copy that implies a track record, referencing “clients” in vague terms, or using language that suggests a base of satisfied firms already running their distribution rebate programs through Aurgus — would be the wrong way to start a client relationship. The practice that decides to work with us will do so with accurate information about where we are. This article is that information.
What the pre-client period means in practice
Here is what being first means for the practice that moves:
Direct access to the founding team. Every question during the first 90 days goes to the engineers who built the tool and the accountants who designed the methodology. Not a support queue. Not a customer success manager two layers removed from anyone who can change something. If a question surfaces about how the tool handles a specific vendor program structure, the person who answers it is the same person who can act on it.
The methodology as designed, not as adapted. Most enterprise software is built to satisfy one client’s requirements, then sold to the next. The methodology in Aurgus was built from the governing accounting standard — ASC 705-20 — not from retrofitting an existing client’s workflow. The first client gets the methodology as designed. That is a different thing from getting a methodology that has been modified to fit someone else’s program structure first.
Early discovery, not late discovery. If the tool does not handle something it should for your program structure, that surfaces in the first close cycle — not in year two of an enterprise contract. The first cycle is the test with a full view of the results.
What it does not mean: it does not mean the methodology is unproven. ASC 705-20-25-10 is the governing standard for how vendors account for consideration given to customers. The tool applies that standard. The question is not whether the standard is established — it is. The question is whether this specific implementation applies it correctly for your program structure. That is the determination the first close cycle makes.
Why some practices are specifically suited to move first
The first client for a governed accounting tool is not a risk-tolerant organization that is comfortable with uncertainty. It is an organization that has already identified the documentation gap and decided the gap needs to close.
The pre-client period is not actually relevant to that decision. The gap in your distribution client’s rebate accounting process either exists or it does not. The diagnostic conversation surfaces whether it does. If the gap is real and the tool is designed to close that specific gap, the engagement is worth running. If the gap does not exist or the tool is not built for your program structure, the evaluation process identifies that before any commitment is made — that is exactly what the evaluation guide is designed to surface.
The timing observation worth making: a CAS practice that formalizes a governed ASC 705-20 close process for a distribution client now — before this becomes a standard service offering at accounting firms that serve the distribution sector — has a head start on building the internal capability before the external expectation fully forms. That is not a competitive advantage claim. It is a timing observation. The capacity to execute this service takes time to develop. The practices that build it first will have it operational when the demand is consistent rather than emerging.
What we are asking for
A 90-day engagement at $600/month. The full pricing and engagement terms are at /pricing/.
At the end of 90 days, the practice has a governed close methodology documented for the specific program structure, three months of accrual calculation traces with the governing standard cited in each calculation, and a settlement reconciliation record for every close period in the engagement. The documentation is owned by the practice.
If the methodology does not apply correctly to the program structure, that determination comes in month one — in the first close cycle, not at month seven. That is the structure of the engagement. The first close is the proof of concept. If it does not work, you know immediately.
The founding team is accessible throughout. The methodology documentation for the first engagement is built from first principles against the actual program structure, not templated from a prior client’s design. What we produce during those 90 days reflects the actual program — not a generic output adapted after the fact.
What we are not asking for
A leap of faith. The diagnostic framework is public. The gap assessment is a self-administered tool — you can identify whether the documentation gap exists before the first conversation. The methodology is documented at /answers/aurgus-methodology/. The evaluation guide gives the specific criteria to use before committing to an engagement. The internal business case framing covers how to present this internally if the diagnostic points toward a conversation.
The first conversation is a diagnostic conversation — it covers what the gap assessment has surfaced and what the first close cycle would actually involve for your specific program structure. No one on our side is trying to close a commitment in that conversation. The goal of that conversation is for both sides to determine whether the engagement is the right one to run.
If you do that evaluation and Aurgus is not the right tool for the program structure you are dealing with, you will know that before spending a dollar. That is what the evaluation process is designed to produce.
Where to go from here
If the evaluation points toward a conversation about what a 90-day engagement would involve for your specific program structure, the next step is at /answers/what-happens-after-you-reply/.
If you have not yet run the gap assessment and want to identify whether the documentation gap exists before that conversation, start at /erp-rebate-gap-assessment/.
If you need the framing for an internal conversation about whether this is worth pursuing — the business case structure for bringing this to a partner or practice leader — that is at /answers/internal-business-case/.
When you are ready to move forward, see If You Are Ready, Here Is What to Do Next.