Scattered filings stalled IR replies — Workiva & SharePoint search with approval workflow

Overview

Investor relations (IR) at a public software company struggled to answer inquiries consistently because prior statements, fact checks, and approved language lived in email threads and scattered folders. Analysts rebuilt answers from memory, Legal re-reviewed routine topics, and executives saw uneven phrasing across channels. Intelligex enabled permissions-aware search across Workiva filings, prior earnings scripts, and Legal-approved Q&A in SharePoint, and added an approval workflow for new statements. IR responses became faster and more consistent, with fewer legal escalations, because every reply cited the same governed sources and moved through a lightweight review when new language was needed.

Client Profile

• Industry: Public enterprise software
• Company size (range): Global, multi-region operations
• Stage: Established public company with frequent investor engagement
• Department owner: Strategy, Analytics & Executive Leadership (Investor Relations)
• Other stakeholders: Legal & Compliance, Corporate Communications, Finance/FP&A, Product Marketing, IT/Security, Executive Office

The Challenge

IR managed questions from analysts, investors, and media using a mix of emails, spreadsheets, and shared folders. Prior language from earnings scripts, call Q&A, and Workiva-generated filings was difficult to find quickly. As a result, responses drifted in tone and content, and similar questions received different answers depending on who replied. Legal reviewed many of the same topics repeatedly, and turnaround slowed when subject-matter experts had to retrace what had already been said publicly.

The company used Workiva for Securities and Exchange Commission filings and internal drafting, SharePoint for repositories, and standard email channels for routing questions. There was no permissions-aware search across these sources, no requirement to cite a prior statement, and no structured approval path for new phrasing. During busy periods, IR teams assembled answers under time pressure, which increased risk of inconsistent language and avoidable legal escalations.

Why It Was Happening

Content and context were fragmented. Filings and approved language sat in Workiva workspaces, earnings scripts and call notes lived in disparate folders, and email threads contained ad hoc fact checks without a durable record. Search worked within each system but not across them with security intact, so analysts defaulted to asking colleagues or re-writing from scratch.

Governance was ad hoc. There was no enforced citation policy, no quiet-period guardrails baked into the process, and no simple way to draft a new answer and route it to Legal and IR leadership for approval. Even when a good response existed, teams could not find it reliably in the moment, and duplication spread.

The Solution

We deployed a permissions-aware search and response workflow that unified approved sources, enforced citation, and added a lightweight review for new statements. Final filings and redlines exported from Workiva were indexed alongside prior earnings scripts and a Legal-approved Q&A library in SharePoint. Microsoft 365 search with connectors provided security-trimmed results, and a response helper generated a draft with inline citations. If new language was required, a routed approval captured Legal and IR sign-off before sending. Nothing was replatformed: Workiva remained the filing system, SharePoint remained the repository, and existing email and CRM channels continued to deliver responses backed by governed content.

• Permissions-aware search across Workiva exports and SharePoint libraries using Microsoft 365 connectors (Microsoft Graph connectors)
• Governed source set: final SEC filings and redlines from Workiva SEC Reporting, prior earnings scripts and call Q&A, and a Legal-approved Q&A library in SharePoint
• Response helper that assembles draft answers with inline citations back to filings or approved scripts, and flags forward-looking or quiet-period sensitivity (aligned with Regulation FD)
• Approval workflow for new or edited statements using Microsoft approvals with comments and tracked changes (Power Automate Approvals)
• Policy filters that block non-public or non-shareable excerpts and require a citation before responses are sent
• Taxonomy and tags for topics, product lines, financial metrics, and risk factors to improve recall and relevance
• Role-based views that respect existing permissions, with request paths for users who need access to restricted items
• Audit log capturing the question, sources cited, approvers, and final language used
• Templates for recurring topics that pre-fill disclaimers, forward-looking language, and cross-references
• Dashboards showing search usage, top topics, approval turnaround, and gaps in the approved Q&A library

Implementation

• Discovery: Mapped IR question flows, source locations for filings and scripts, and Legal review patterns. Cataloged common topics, quiet-period rules, and forward-looking statement practices. Reviewed identity and permissions across SharePoint and Workiva exports.
• Design: Defined the source catalog and tagging schema (topic, product, metric, risk). Chose connectors and indexing scope. Authored the citation policy and quiet-period checks. Designed the approval workflow and audit fields for new statements, and embedded the response helper into the existing request channel.
• Build: Configured Microsoft 365 search connectors to index governed SharePoint libraries with Workiva exports and scripts. Implemented the response helper to pull citations and enforce policy filters. Built the approval flow in Power Automate with Legal and IR roles, comments, and tracked edits. Enabled dashboards for usage and gaps.
• Testing and QA: Ran historical questions through the workflow, validated search relevance and permission trimming, verified citation formatting, and exercised quiet-period flags. Dry-ran approvals with Legal on sensitive topics, tuning templates and filters to reduce noise.
• Rollout: Launched read-only search and citation helper for a pilot group while legacy processes continued. After validation, required citations for investor-facing emails and enabled the approval workflow for new language. Expanded access to regional IR and Communications with role-based permissions.
• Training and hand-off: Delivered quick guides for IR on searching and citing, for Legal on approvals and edits, and for Comms on template management. Established stewardship for the Q&A library and a cadence to refresh tags and templates after earnings and major filings. Included a human-in-the-loop review for edge cases.

Results

IR replies referenced consistent, approved language with clear citations back to filings or prior scripts. Analysts and investors received answers that matched what the company had already said publicly, and new statements moved through a short review without slowing day-to-day responsiveness. Legal saw fewer escalations because routine topics drew from a vetted library and quiet-period sensitivities were flagged automatically.

Executives gained confidence that talking points were aligned across channels. The team spent less time hunting for old emails and more time preparing for nuanced discussions. The audit log created a durable record of what was said, when, and on what basis, which simplified follow-ups and aligned earnings prep with the latest approved language.

What Changed for the Team

• Before: Prior statements were buried in email threads. After: Permissions-aware search surfaced filings, scripts, and approved Q&A with one query.
• Before: Responses varied by author. After: Draft answers carried required citations and pulled from a vetted source set.
• Before: Legal re-reviewed routine topics ad hoc. After: Approved templates handled common questions; new statements flowed through a quick approval.
• Before: Quiet-period checks were manual. After: Policy filters flagged forward-looking risk and required disclaimers or review.
• Before: No durable record of what was said. After: An audit log tied each response to sources, approvers, and final language.

Key Takeaways

• Unify filings, scripts, and approved Q&A under permissions-aware search so IR starts from governed sources.
• Enforce citation and policy checks in the response flow; governance should happen before messages leave the building.
• Use lightweight approvals for new statements and sensitive topics to balance speed and compliance.
• Keep Workiva and SharePoint; orchestrate indexing, templates, and approvals rather than migrating content.
• Maintain a living Q&A library and topic taxonomy so recurring questions are answered consistently over time.

FAQ

What tools did this integrate with?
We indexed final filings and redlines exported from Workiva SEC Reporting and Legal-approved Q&A and scripts in SharePoint using Microsoft Graph connectors. The approval workflow ran in Power Automate Approvals, and the response helper delivered citations into the existing email and CRM channels. No core systems were replaced.

How did you handle quality control and governance?
We enforced a citation policy that required links to filings or approved scripts for every response. Policy filters flagged forward-looking or quiet-period sensitivity and blocked non-shareable excerpts. New or edited statements moved through a short approval with Legal and IR leadership. An audit log captured sources, approvers, and final language for each message.

How did you roll this out without disruption?
We started with read-only search and citation suggestions while the team continued its existing workflow. After confidence grew, we required citations for investor-facing replies and activated the approval flow for new language. Access remained role-based, and content stayed in Workiva and SharePoint to minimize change.

How were permissions and Regulation FD addressed?
Search respected existing SharePoint permissions and Workiva export access. Responses used only public or Legal-approved content, and the helper flagged forward-looking statements for disclaimers or review, aligning with Regulation FD. Restricted items appeared as summaries with a request path rather than full text for users without access.

How did citations reduce misquotes and rework?
Drafts embedded inline citations pointing to specific sections of filings or prior scripts. IR could click through to confirm context before sending, and Legal saw exactly which sources supported the language. This reduced back-and-forth and ensured that updates to templates or filings flowed into future responses through the same governed index.