The technical report ended up in the CFO's drawer. The renewal with it, for two months.
If the person who signs doesn't understand the report, you don't have a difficult client: you have a report written for the wrong person.
A rock-solid report, for the wrong person.
To get the annual renewal, CyberAngels' technicians had to prove the value of the work done. So they sent a detailed report: a list of vulnerabilities, CVE codes, server status. Solid technical work.
The problem is that the person who decides the spend isn't a technician: it's the CFO. Facing pages of codes and acronyms that don't speak their language, they can't tell what the real risks to the company are if protection lapses. Not perceiving the urgency, they postponed signing for months, and CyberAngels lost time and revenue on deals that never closed.
On the left, the data the technician finds rock-solid. On the right, the question the person who signs the spend has to answer. No one had ever built the bridge between the two.
The technical work was correct. It stayed written in the wrong language.
The assessment was done well: vulnerabilities identified, severity classified, codes correct. But that work stayed written in the language of who produces it, not of who has to sign off on its value. A CFO doesn't have the tools to convert on their own "CVE-2023-38831, CVSS 7.8" into "this is the risk to the company, this is the spend that justifies it". No one had ever translated it for them: so the report stayed a technical document instead of becoming a business decision, and the signature kept slipping month after month.
Software that translates IT into economic impact.
The raw data collected by the technicians is fed into the software, which processes it and automatically translates it into a second, written report understandable by whoever in the company decides the spend — ready to send to the CFO or present to the board.
"RCE vulnerability detected (CVE-2023-38831, CVSS 7.8) on database DB-ERP-01 (IP 192.168.1.45). Missing security patch and deprecated TLS 1.0 protocol active on port 443."
"Critical risk: the system managing inventory and warehouse orders has an unprotected flaw. An external attack could block shipments of the new collection, with an estimated 3 days of total shipping downtime."
The same technical data collected by the technicians, automatically translated into the language a CFO reasons in: revenue, operational continuity, downtime.
The software generates a PDF ready for the board, without anyone having to translate it aloud in the meeting first.
The renewal is approved in 5 days, not 60 anymore.
With the new reporting system, CyberAngels eliminated the dead time in the renewal phase: the document that reaches the CFO is already in their language, and no longer needs to be chased with reminders.
From 60 days of continuous reminders to 5 clean days: -92% waiting time, for the same technical work.
From 60 days of reminders to 5 clean days for the same renewal.
No longer a technical list of vulnerabilities: a PDF with the estimated economic risk.
Cybersecurity is seen as protecting revenue, not as a pure cost.
“We used to lose up to two months getting a renewal signed because the client's CFO didn't understand what they were paying for. Now we hand over a report that clearly shows the economic risk to their company. They grasp the value of the service instantly and approve the renewal in record time.”
Head of Sales, CyberAngels
If the person who signs doesn't understand the report, you don't have a difficult client: you have a report written for the wrong person.
How many of your reports end up in the drawer instead of on the table that signs? The ROIometer puts it in euros.