Supervisor
No single filing outlet
Tiers publish their own tables, so one metric exists in several versions and people reconcile by hand.
- Report versions drift
- Differences hard to prove
Sector · State-owned capital & guidance funds
Three tiers report the same investment on three different definitions
A provincial group, a municipal platform and a district entity rarely agree on what "invested capital" means. The work is not putting three spreadsheets online. It is freezing the differences into a ledger: who owns each definition, when it changed, and which version a filing answers. We deliver in that order, and we build online supervision platforms for state-owned capital.
Context and source of the rules
Field authority sits with the filing rules, not with the vendor
Three documents constrain a state-owned investment platform: the supervisory reporting rules, the performance-assessment metric set, and the audit evidence requirements. Together they decide which fields must exist, which historical values cannot be overwritten, and which definition changes need a trace.
The three-tier structure magnifies this. A provincial group files annually to its supervisory body; a municipal platform files quarterly to the local SASAC office; a district entity files per project to its own finance or state-asset authority. These are not three formats. They are the same investment defined three times: an equity transfer reads as invested capital for assessment, as holding tier for property-rights reporting, and as a decision chain for audit.
So our first deliverable is not a screen. It is a data dictionary signed by the business, risk and supervisory reporting lines — each field with an owner, a scope, and an immutable flag.
Look-through holdings
The structure must be explorable tier by tier
"Look-through" is not a reporting action; it is a data shape. Every equity change keeps its effective date, the before and after percentages, the approving step and the agreement version behind it. Only on that basis can the system answer the two questions supervisors actually ask: what do we hold today, and which decision produced that number.
Multi-layer holdings, on-behalf-of registrations and changing state-owned percentages are nodes and edges in one relationship table. The report is a projection of it. We model this as a holding graph rather than a stack of summary fields.
- Dilution, transfer and capital increase in one model
- Any percentage traces to an approval and a document
- Multi-layer structures aggregate at the strictest tier
Live pressure
Four roles chase the same number at once
The case for a system comes from stacked deadlines, not from a technology wish.
Risk
Indicators without a daily basis
Eighteen risk indicators depend on manual pulls, so alerts arrive after the event.
- Late detection
- No action trail
Audit
Long evidence chain
One transfer is traced from agreement to voucher; materials get re-supplied throughout the audit window.
- Attachments detached
- Decision chain unclear
IT
Localised stack and permissions
Domestic-stack compatibility, three permission levels and deployment form all sit in the tender text.
- Full-stack requirement
- Field-level permissions
Supervisory filing rarely fails because there was no system. It fails because no party ever signed the definitions across three tiers.Delivery methodology · data dictionary chapter
Order of remediation
Settle the definitions before you go live
We treat the first two stages as no-code. Inverting the order sends the team back to manual assembly in the first filing season.
01 · assess
Map the breaks
Interview three lines and draw how data moves — and where it stops — between tiers.
- Definition gaps
- Filing burden list
- Legacy ledger quality
02 · blueprint
Sign the dictionary
Lock field definitions, owners, immutable flags and aggregation rules in one version.
- Data dictionary v1
- Metric definitions
- Phased roadmap
03 · model
Holdings and project master data
Recompute stakes by effective date and build the look-through graph plus a single project key.
- Change history kept
- Layered aggregation
- One project ID
04 · converge
One outlet, daily alerts
Collapse outward reporting into one outlet and recompute eighteen risk indicators each day.
- One source, many outlets
- Alert trail
- Traceable approvals
05 · operate
Review and evolve
Quarterly definition reviews, with mobile approval through DingTalk, Lark or WeCom.
- SLA in contract
- Metric library grows
- Migration and enablement
Capability map: supervisory question to system object
Mapped against the published business-system list. Fields and workflows are configured to your definitions; this is not a standard-feature commitment.
| What the supervisor asks | System object | Business system | Definition source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who holds this investment, and how much | Holding graph and equity-change ledger | SOE online supervision platform | Property-rights and registration rules |
| Does a sub-fund meet reinvestment targets | Fund — sub-fund — project look-through | Guidance fund / FOF system | Guidance fund measures and assessment rules |
| Has a portfolio company tripped a warning | Eighteen indicators plus sentiment monitoring | Portfolio and fund risk monitoring | Risk framework, customisable |
| Why do tiers disagree on one metric | Versioned data dictionary and aggregation rules | Private equity operations system | Supervisory reporting rules |
| Who changed which field and when | Function, data and field-level permissions plus behaviour trail | OA collaboration system | Security and audit requirements |
| Can reporting export in one pass | Filing outlet plus export templates | SOE online supervision platform | Local supervisory reporting checklist |
Integration and deployment perimeter
Common in-scope integration targets; confirm the exact list against your jurisdiction and supervising body.
DingTalkLarkWeComWeChatLP and GP portal integrationPublic cloudPrivate cloudAir-gapped intranetXinchuang full-stack adaptationAES-256 at restTLS 1.3 in transitFinancial-report OCR
500+
Institutions served to date
14,000+
Funds covered on platform (managed basis)
5.6RMB tn+
Assets covered on platform (managed basis)
15
Domestic offices for on-site delivery
Market position: figures and their limits
All figures below are annual third-party selections measuring client coverage. Positions move year to year; they are not a current ranking or a performance guarantee.
| Basis | Figure | Qualifier |
|---|---|---|
| Top-50 state-owned managers using PEPM | 17 / 50 | Annual third-party selection; coverage statistic, not a current rank |
| Share among state-owned managers | 30%+ | Company-disclosed figure; strongest with central-provincial platforms |
| Process maturity | CMMI Level 3 | Scope as stated on the certificate |
| Domestic-stack readiness | Xinchuang qualified | Adaptation list confirmed per jurisdiction |
| Software copyrights | 100+ | Cumulative registrations |
When we advise against buying
A single district entity with fewer than twenty active projects and one annual filing needs a shared ledger and a reviewer, not a platform; procurement usually slows that filing down. We also decline briefings where the system is expected to absorb investment-decision accountability. Software compresses evidence-gathering and calculation time; the decision stays with people.
Qualifications behind this page
CMMI Level 3ISO 9001High-tech EnterpriseXinchuang (localised IT) readyAAA credit rating
Questions at shortlist and acceptance
Mechanism answers, not a substitute for your supervising body’s written position.
How deep should look-through shareholding actually go?
Until the tier that answers the supervisor’s question. Three stop conditions usually apply: the ultimate contributor, the level already publicly disclosed by a listed company, or the level at which you carry no filing duty. Going further adds noise. We model the tier named in your reporting checklist and keep deeper layers as optional views.
When provincial, municipal and district definitions conflict, which one wins in the system?
Whoever assesses you owns that definition. Assessment metrics follow the supervisory measure; property-rights data follows registration. When they conflict, the system keeps both versions and records the reason for the difference on the report. Software does not arbitrate definitions — it makes the difference provable, which is a clause that must be signed into the data dictionary.
Can the system compute reinvestment recognition for a guidance fund automatically?
Only after the recognition rules are structured: what counts (local registration, tax payment, place of operation, statistical attribution), the time window, and whether the test is by ratio or by amount. In the measures these are sentences. Our assessment produces a reinvestment recognition rule table that separates what is automatable from what needs human confirmation, so the system never emits an unprovable conclusion.
Must the whole stack be localised at once, or can it be phased?
Most provincial and municipal tenders treat domestic-stack compatibility as mandatory, but the depth differs: some stop at running the application, others require database, middleware and OS replacement. We hold the qualification and deliver the adaptation inside the contract. The safer route is to prove definitions and workflow on the localised stack first, then swap performance-sensitive components, rather than migrating content and foundation at the same time.
How does this relate to the OA and finance systems we already run?
OA carries approval evidence; finance carries postings. Neither answers "what is our diluted stake and carrying value in this project today". We model investments, funds, holdings and valuations as their own objects and interface them to OA approval nodes and finance accounts, instead of merging into either.
Next step
Run a definition audit before choosing the first workstream
Bring the filing that hurts most to a 45-minute assessment. We split it into field conflicts, owners and a convergence path on the spot. The provincial SOE case page states our published basis.