Grant Distribution Auditor
Audit-ready slices of your grant population.
Your stock administration platform exports raw rows. Your HRIS knows the level, function, country, and tier behind each row. This tool joins them into an audit view: distribution by level, function, country, grant year, award type, and any optional demographic dimension you provide; concentration math; cohort outliers; and a memo for TR, DEIB, finance, legal, and the comp committee.
Deterministic rules engine. No AI in the audit path. Client-side only. Demographic columns are optional, sensitive, and never leave your browser tab.
How to use this in an audit cycle
Step 1
Assemble grants + people data
Pull grants outstanding from Fidelity / Shareworks / Computershare / E*TRADE / Carta. Join with level / function / country / perf tier from Workday / SuccessFactors / Oracle HCM / Dayforce / UKG. Add optional demographic columns from your DEIB analytics partner.
Step 2
Confirm settings
Set the default FMV (most recent 409A or trading-day reference), the cohort outlier multiple, the stale-grant threshold, and the concentration percentile.
Step 3
Walk distributions
Review by level, function, country, grant year, award type, performance tier, and (when present) each demographic dimension. Compare against the company grant philosophy.
Step 4
Triage exceptions
Walk missing-data, zero-share, stale-grant, and cohort-outlier rows. Document the rationale for any exception you decide to keep.
Step 5
Hand off
TR leadership → DEIB partner (paired analysis on demographic distributions) → finance (reconciliation) → legal (privacy + plan compliance) → comp committee.
What this tool is, and what it isn’t
Deterministic, not AI
Distribution buckets, concentration math, and exception flags are computed by a rules engine in src/lib/grantDistribution.ts, unit-tested. AI is not used to decide which rows are flagged or which dimensions are surfaced.
Client-side only
Your CSV is parsed in your browser. The data lives in this tab's memory for the session and is gone the moment the tab closes. Nothing is uploaded, including the demographic columns.
Not a disparate-impact study
Counts and averages by cohort are a starting point for the conversation, not a substitute for paired analysis with the People / DEIB function. Take this output to the partner who can run a controlled analysis.
Not a system of record
Your stock administration platform owns the source of truth. This tool sits above that. It's the audit workbench between the export and the comp committee pre-read.
Settings
Defaults a TR practitioner would set once at the start of an audit cycle.
Where to find thisDefault FMV: most recent 409A valuation (private) or trading-day reference (public). Stale-grant threshold: typically 5 years for an audit; tighten for a refresh-cycle review. Cohort outlier multiple: TR policy threshold for how far a single grant can sit above its (level, function) median before review. Concentration percentile: standard top-decile reference; can also use 0.05 (top 5%) for a tighter view.
Grant population
Manual entry or paste/upload a grants outstanding worksheet joined with HRIS fields.
Where to find thisGrant ID, Award Type, Grant Date, Shares, FMV at Grant, Current FMV: Fidelity / Shareworks (Morgan Stanley) / Computershare / E*TRADE / Carta grants outstanding export. Level, Function, Country, Performance Tier: Workday / SAP SuccessFactors / Oracle HCM / Dayforce / UKG. Demographic columns: optional, free-text dimension name prefixed with 'Demographic:' or 'Demo:' (e.g., Demographic: Gender). Required column: Level (or Grant ID if you're auditing by grant only).
Or paste CSV inline
| ID | Name | Level | Function | Country | Tier | Award | Grant date | Shares | Current FMV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The inline table edits the most-used columns. The full row schema (FMV at grant, current FMV override, vesting pattern, demographic dimensions) is honored on import and reflected in the analysis, memo, and exported CSV.
Population summary
Grants
26
Employees
25
Total shares
135,500
Total value
$7,452,500
Avg grant value
$286,635
Median grant value
$126,500
Rows with exceptions
5
Demographic dimensions
3
Concentration
Top 10% employees
3 of 25
…hold this share of value
56.5%
Gini coefficient
0.599
Levels in pop.
7
Concentration by level
| Level | Employees | Share of value |
|---|---|---|
| L7 | 3 | 53.9% |
| L6 | 6 | 18.0% |
| L5 | 8 | 11.7% |
| M5 | 2 | 7.1% |
| M6 | 1 | 6.3% |
| L4 | 4 | 2.4% |
| (missing) | 1 | 0.7% |
Distribution by structural dimensions
By level
| Bucket | Grants | Empl. | Total $ | % of value | Avg $ | Median $ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L7 | 3 | 3 | $4,015,000 | 53.9% | $1,338,333 | $440,000 |
| L6 | 7 | 6 | $1,342,000 | 18.0% | $191,714 | $209,000 |
| L5 | 8 | 8 | $869,000 | 11.7% | $108,625 | $110,000 |
| M5 | 2 | 2 | $528,000 | 7.1% | $264,000 | $264,000 |
| M6 | 1 | 1 | $467,500 | 6.3% | $467,500 | $467,500 |
| L4 | 4 | 4 | $176,000 | 2.4% | $44,000 | $55,000 |
| (missing) | 1 | 1 | $55,000 | 0.7% | $55,000 | $55,000 |
By function
| Bucket | Grants | Empl. | Total $ | % of value | Avg $ | Median $ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 15 | 14 | $6,198,500 | 83.2% | $413,233 | $209,000 |
| Sales | 6 | 6 | $753,500 | 10.1% | $125,583 | $90,750 |
| People | 2 | 2 | $209,000 | 2.8% | $104,500 | $104,500 |
| Legal | 1 | 1 | $187,000 | 2.5% | $187,000 | $187,000 |
| Finance | 2 | 2 | $104,500 | 1.4% | $52,250 | $52,250 |
By country
| Bucket | Grants | Empl. | Total $ | % of value | Avg $ | Median $ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US | 22 | 21 | $6,803,500 | 91.3% | $309,250 | $126,500 |
| AE | 1 | 1 | $231,000 | 3.1% | $231,000 | $231,000 |
| DE | 1 | 1 | $198,000 | 2.7% | $198,000 | $198,000 |
| DK | 1 | 1 | $121,000 | 1.6% | $121,000 | $121,000 |
| JP | 1 | 1 | $99,000 | 1.3% | $99,000 | $99,000 |
By grant year
| Bucket | Grants | Empl. | Total $ | % of value | Avg $ | Median $ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 1 | 1 | $3,300,000 | 44.3% | $3,300,000 | $3,300,000 |
| 2024 | 4 | 4 | $847,000 | 11.4% | $211,750 | $209,000 |
| 2025 | 20 | 20 | $3,223,000 | 43.2% | $161,150 | $118,250 |
By award type
| Bucket | Grants | Empl. | Total $ | % of value | Avg $ | Median $ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISO | 1 | 1 | $3,300,000 | 44.3% | $3,300,000 | $3,300,000 |
| RSU | 22 | 21 | $3,113,000 | 41.8% | $141,500 | $118,250 |
| PSU | 3 | 3 | $1,039,500 | 13.9% | $346,500 | $297,000 |
By performance tier
| Bucket | Grants | Empl. | Total $ | % of value | Avg $ | Median $ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top | 9 | 8 | $4,867,500 | 65.3% | $540,833 | $231,000 |
| High | 7 | 7 | $1,441,000 | 19.3% | $205,857 | $187,000 |
| Meets | 9 | 9 | $1,144,000 | 15.4% | $127,111 | $104,500 |
| Below | 1 | 1 | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 |
Distribution by demographic dimension
Counts and averages by cohort. Use as a starting point only; do not infer disparate impact from an unweighted distribution view. Take this output to your DEIB partner for paired analysis.
Ethnicity Group
| Bucket | Grants | Empl. | Total $ | % of value | Avg $ | Median $ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 7 | 7 | $4,818,000 | 64.6% | $688,286 | $198,000 |
| Asian | 8 | 7 | $1,386,000 | 18.6% | $173,250 | $176,000 |
| Black | 4 | 4 | $550,000 | 7.4% | $137,500 | $134,750 |
| Hispanic/Latino | 2 | 2 | $236,500 | 3.2% | $118,250 | $118,250 |
| Middle Eastern | 1 | 1 | $231,000 | 3.1% | $231,000 | $231,000 |
Gender
| Bucket | Grants | Empl. | Total $ | % of value | Avg $ | Median $ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 13 | 12 | $5,846,500 | 78.5% | $449,731 | $231,000 |
| Women | 9 | 9 | $1,375,000 | 18.5% | $152,778 | $115,500 |
Generation
| Bucket | Grants | Empl. | Total $ | % of value | Avg $ | Median $ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gen X | 12 | 11 | $5,786,000 | 77.6% | $482,167 | $220,000 |
| Millennial | 10 | 10 | $1,435,500 | 19.3% | $143,550 | $126,500 |
Exceptions
Counts by type, sorted by volume. Red = blocks audit completion until resolved (missing level, missing award type). Amber = needs documentation.
Missing demographic field
4
Missing level
1
Missing grant date
1
Zero shares
1
Unusually high value
1
Stale grant
1
Needs manual review
1
Per-grant exceptions detail
First 50 rows shown for readability. Use the results CSV for the full set.
| ID / Name | Level · Function · Award | Shares | Computed value | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1099Z. Founder | L7 · Engineering · ISO | 60,000 | $3,300,000 | Stale grantUnusually high value |
| · Grant is 8 years old (threshold: 5). Confirm whether this grant is still in scope for the audit.· Grant value $3,300,000 exceeds 3.0× the cohort median ($440,000) for L7 / Engineering. Confirm whether the grant reflects an off-cycle approval, a make-whole, or an outlier worth documenting. | ||||
| E2001Missing-Level Sample | — · Engineering · RSU | 1,000 | $55,000 | Missing levelMissing demographic field |
| · Level is missing. Distribution by level cannot include this row; it will appear in a separate (missing) bucket.· Demographic dimension "Gender" is missing. Distribution by Gender will exclude this row. | ||||
| E2002Missing-Date Sample | L5 · Sales · RSU | 1,500 | $82,500 | Missing grant dateMissing demographic field |
| · Grant date is missing or unparseable. The grant-year distribution and stale-grant check will skip this row.· Demographic dimension "Gender" is missing. Distribution by Gender will exclude this row. | ||||
| E2003Zero-Shares Sample | L4 · Finance · RSU | 0 | $0 | Zero sharesMissing demographic field |
| · Zero shares granted. Confirm whether this is a placeholder row, a forfeiture, or genuine zero.· Demographic dimension "Gender" is missing. Distribution by Gender will exclude this row. | ||||
| E2004No-Demographics Sample | L5 · People · RSU | 1,700 | $93,500 | Missing demographic field |
| · Demographic dimension "Gender" is missing. Distribution by Gender will exclude this row. | ||||
Audit memo
Plain markdown. Drop into your audit pre-read or comp-committee packet.
# Grant distribution audit — planning memo
Educational diagnostic prepared from typed inputs. Not legal, tax, accounting, financial, compensation, or DEIB advice. Counts and averages by cohort are a starting point for the conversation, not a substitute for qualified analysis. Bring this memo to TR leadership, DEIB, finance, legal, and the comp committee for review before any action.
## 1. Inputs and assumptions
- Population: 26 grants across 25 distinct employees.
- Default FMV per share: $55 (per-row currentFmv / fmvAtGrant honored where supplied).
- Stale-grant threshold: 5 years (computed against 2026-05-08).
- Cohort outlier rule: grant value > 3.0× the median for the (level, function) cohort, ignoring grants with ≤ 50 shares (treated as seed grants).
- Concentration threshold: top 10% of employees by total per-employee value.
- Demographic dimensions detected in the population: Ethnicity Group, Gender, Generation.
- Required demographic dimensions for completeness check: Gender.
## 2. Population summary
- Total shares granted: 135,500
- Total computed value: $7,452,500
- Average grant value: $286,635
- Median grant value: $126,500
## 3. Distribution by level
- **L7** — 3 grants · 3 employees · $4,015,000 (53.9% of value) · avg $1,338,333 · median $440,000
- **L6** — 7 grants · 6 employees · $1,342,000 (18.0% of value) · avg $191,714 · median $209,000
- **L5** — 8 grants · 8 employees · $869,000 (11.7% of value) · avg $108,625 · median $110,000
- **M5** — 2 grants · 2 employees · $528,000 (7.1% of value) · avg $264,000 · median $264,000
- **M6** — 1 grants · 1 employees · $467,500 (6.3% of value) · avg $467,500 · median $467,500
- **L4** — 4 grants · 4 employees · $176,000 (2.4% of value) · avg $44,000 · median $55,000
- **(missing)** — 1 grants · 1 employees · $55,000 (0.7% of value) · avg $55,000 · median $55,000
## 4. Distribution by function
- **Engineering** — 15 grants · 14 employees · $6,198,500 (83.2% of value) · avg $413,233 · median $209,000
- **Sales** — 6 grants · 6 employees · $753,500 (10.1% of value) · avg $125,583 · median $90,750
- **People** — 2 grants · 2 employees · $209,000 (2.8% of value) · avg $104,500 · median $104,500
- **Legal** — 1 grants · 1 employees · $187,000 (2.5% of value) · avg $187,000 · median $187,000
- **Finance** — 2 grants · 2 employees · $104,500 (1.4% of value) · avg $52,250 · median $52,250
## 5. Distribution by country
- **US** — 22 grants · 21 employees · $6,803,500 (91.3% of value) · avg $309,250 · median $126,500
- **AE** — 1 grants · 1 employees · $231,000 (3.1% of value) · avg $231,000 · median $231,000
- **DE** — 1 grants · 1 employees · $198,000 (2.7% of value) · avg $198,000 · median $198,000
- **DK** — 1 grants · 1 employees · $121,000 (1.6% of value) · avg $121,000 · median $121,000
- **JP** — 1 grants · 1 employees · $99,000 (1.3% of value) · avg $99,000 · median $99,000
## 6. Distribution by grant year
- **2018** — 1 grants · 1 employees · $3,300,000 (44.3% of value) · avg $3,300,000 · median $3,300,000
- **2024** — 4 grants · 4 employees · $847,000 (11.4% of value) · avg $211,750 · median $209,000
- **2025** — 20 grants · 20 employees · $3,223,000 (43.2% of value) · avg $161,150 · median $118,250
## 7. Distribution by award type
- **ISO** — 1 grants · 1 employees · $3,300,000 (44.3% of value) · avg $3,300,000 · median $3,300,000
- **RSU** — 22 grants · 21 employees · $3,113,000 (41.8% of value) · avg $141,500 · median $118,250
- **PSU** — 3 grants · 3 employees · $1,039,500 (13.9% of value) · avg $346,500 · median $297,000
## 8. Distribution by performance tier
- **Top** — 9 grants · 8 employees · $4,867,500 (65.3% of value) · avg $540,833 · median $231,000
- **High** — 7 grants · 7 employees · $1,441,000 (19.3% of value) · avg $205,857 · median $187,000
- **Meets** — 9 grants · 9 employees · $1,144,000 (15.4% of value) · avg $127,111 · median $104,500
- **Below** — 1 grants · 1 employees · $0 (0.0% of value) · avg $0 · median $0
## 9. Distribution by demographic dimension
Counts and averages by cohort. Use as a starting point only; do not infer disparate impact from an unweighted distribution view.
### Ethnicity Group
- **White** — 7 grants · 7 employees · $4,818,000 (64.6% of value) · avg $688,286 · median $198,000
- **Asian** — 8 grants · 7 employees · $1,386,000 (18.6% of value) · avg $173,250 · median $176,000
- **Black** — 4 grants · 4 employees · $550,000 (7.4% of value) · avg $137,500 · median $134,750
- **Hispanic/Latino** — 2 grants · 2 employees · $236,500 (3.2% of value) · avg $118,250 · median $118,250
- **Middle Eastern** — 1 grants · 1 employees · $231,000 (3.1% of value) · avg $231,000 · median $231,000
### Gender
- **Men** — 13 grants · 12 employees · $5,846,500 (78.5% of value) · avg $449,731 · median $231,000
- **Women** — 9 grants · 9 employees · $1,375,000 (18.5% of value) · avg $152,778 · median $115,500
### Generation
- **Gen X** — 12 grants · 11 employees · $5,786,000 (77.6% of value) · avg $482,167 · median $220,000
- **Millennial** — 10 grants · 10 employees · $1,435,500 (19.3% of value) · avg $143,550 · median $126,500
## 10. Concentration
- Top 10% of employees (3 of 25) hold **56.5%** of total computed value.
- Gini coefficient on per-employee total value: **0.599** (0 = even, 1 = perfectly unequal).
By level:
- L7 — 3 employees · 53.9% of value
- L6 — 6 employees · 18.0% of value
- L5 — 8 employees · 11.7% of value
- M5 — 2 employees · 7.1% of value
- M6 — 1 employees · 6.3% of value
- L4 — 4 employees · 2.4% of value
- (missing) — 1 employees · 0.7% of value
Concentration is high (top 10% of employees hold 56.5% of value, ratio 5.65× even-distribution). Common in founder-heavy / pre-IPO populations; review against the comp committee's dilution and ownership philosophy.
## 11. Exceptions
- Missing demographic field: 4
- Missing level: 1
- Missing grant date: 1
- Zero shares: 1
- Unusually high value: 1
- Stale grant: 1
- Needs manual review: 1
## 12. Rows needing manual review (top 12)
- **E2001** (— · Engineering · RSU) — 1,000 shares · $55,000
- Missing level: Level is missing. Distribution by level cannot include this row; it will appear in a separate (missing) bucket.
- Missing demographic field: Demographic dimension "Gender" is missing. Distribution by Gender will exclude this row.
## 13. Recommended next steps
1. **TR leadership.** Walk the by-level and by-function distributions against the company's grant philosophy and refresh framework. Document the rationale for any concentration that diverges from policy.
2. **DEIB partner.** If demographic dimensions are present, take the by-dimension distribution to the People / DEIB function for a paired analysis. Counts and averages alone are not a disparate-impact study.
3. **Finance.** Reconcile the population value to the latest 409A or trading-day reference. Confirm fits the dilution and burn-rate forecast.
4. **Legal.** Confirm consistency with plan-document share reserve, individual-grant limits, and country-specific restrictions. Confirm any sensitive demographic data handling complies with applicable privacy law and corporate policy.
5. **Comp committee handoff.** Package this memo with the Stock Plan Health Check (burn-rate / overhang) and the refresh sizing memo if applicable.
## Disclaimer
Outputs reflect the inputs and settings typed above. Real audit decisions are governed by the company's plan document, comp committee authority, ASC 718 expense considerations, share-pool runway, dilution targets, applicable employment, securities, and privacy law, and the qualified analysis of the People / DEIB function. This memo is a planning aid, not an approval, and not a disparate-impact study.Educational diagnostic. Not legal, tax, accounting, financial, compensation, or DEIB advice. Counts and averages by cohort are a starting point for the conversation, not a substitute for qualified analysis. Bring this memo to TR leadership, DEIB, finance, legal, and the comp committee before any action.