Article

Consulting and advisory firms: get paid for your records

By TrustPast

Updated November 7, 2026

This page is for a management consultancy, an advisory practice, a strategy boutique or an operations firm with 30 or more people. A firm like that sells its people’s time and judgment, and it assumes the judgment leaves with the final deck. It doesn’t. Most of it is still in the firm’s own files: the proposal library, the workplans, the issue logs, the partner’s comments on the draft.

Those files record how a problem got framed, how a hypothesis was tested and dropped, how the recommendation was argued into shape. A buyer pays to license records like these to train AI models, and it is paying for how the work was done, not for who the client was. The plain version, written for trade businesses and true of a consulting floor, is on what data buyers actually want from a trade business.

Here is what a consulting firm keeps, what micro1 says counts, what stays with the client, and what sets the price.

The records a consulting and advisory firm keeps

These are our examples, not a buyer’s list. They are what a firm produces as it wins, runs and closes engagements, year after year.

The proposal and the statement of work. A prospect describes a problem. The firm writes back what it will do, in what order, with whom and for what fee. Most proposals lose. The ones that won show how the firm scoped work; the lost ones, with the debrief notes, show where it priced or framed it wrong.

The workplan and the issue tree. The first week’s work: the question broken into parts, the hypotheses, the analyses that would prove or kill each, the owner and the date. Later versions show which branches were pruned.

The issue log and the change request. What came up mid-engagement, what it did to the scope, and how the firm and the client settled it. A change request with its email thread is a record of how a promise was renegotiated without losing the client.

Interview guides and synthesis. The questions, then the themes pulled out of thirty conversations. The guide and the synthesis are method; the raw notes are about people and usually belong with the client’s information.

The draft and the review comments. The deck or the report in its first version, the manager’s red pen, the partner’s questions, the second version. This is where the firm’s standard gets applied, page by page.

The steering committee record. Each meeting’s pre-read, the decisions asked for, the decisions made, and the follow-up.

The close-out. The final report, the lessons learned, the case write-up for the next proposal.

The firm’s own library. Templates, frameworks, training decks, the proposal bank, the methodology handbook and the internal wiki.

Much of this lives in email. The client threads, the partner threads, the late-night exchange about whether a number could hold up in front of the board. Our email archives page shows which parts of an inbox carry the reasoning. The rest sits in engagement folders, and the project history page covers how a plan, its changes and its close-out read as one record.

Then there are the records a firm forgets it has. The staffing spreadsheet that shows which mix of people the partners put on which kind of problem. The pricing notes behind each fee, including the discounts and the reasons for them. The internal chat where a manager asked a colleague how they had handled the same question at another client. The recordings and notes from internal training, where senior people explained how they run a workshop or open a hard conversation. The pipeline review where partners argued about which proposals to chase. Nobody bought these as systems, so they never make the list of tools the firm pays for. Each holds a piece of how the firm does its work, written by the people who do it.

An invented example shows how an engagement leaves its trail. A firm proposed a cost review to a distributor in 2018, scoped at ten weeks. The workplan had four hypotheses. By week three, two were dead: the data showed freight wasn’t the problem. A change request moved two weeks of effort to warehouse labour. The partner’s comments on the draft asked for the savings to be shown by site, not in total. The steering committee approved three of five recommendations, and the close-out note said why the other two stalled. Every step has a date and a reason. A firm with 400 engagements behind it has 400 of these.

See your estimate

What counts, in micro1’s own words

micro1 states its eligibility on its data partnerships page: “We’re looking for established companies with 30+ full-time employees, mature business operations, and substantial historical operational data.” It continues: “This can include internal communications, SOPs, project histories, CRM records, support tickets, and other business documentation.”

On the kind of data, micro1 says: “We are looking for data that reflects how work is actually performed within an organization.” It lists “standard operating procedures (SOPs), process documentation, internal knowledge bases, workflows, templates, operational frameworks, and other business process artifacts”. And it says “The most valuable datasets capture real operational expertise, decision-making processes, and repeatable workflows”.

micro1 doesn’t name consulting among its industry examples, and it doesn’t say it is looking for consulting firms in particular. The referral page lists “All industries” among its requirements. Read against a firm’s files, as our own reading, the words fit closely. A methodology handbook is process documentation. A workplan template is a template. An issue tree is an operational framework, applied. The partner’s review comments and the steering committee minutes are decision-making processes, recorded as they happened. And a firm’s whole product is what micro1 calls “real operational expertise”.

On depth, micro1 says it evaluates “the historical depth, breadth, quality, and relevance of the available data”, and that “Companies with several years of records across multiple business systems are generally a stronger fit.” A firm has the email, the document store, the CRM of proposals and the time and billing system: several systems, all dated.

On language and place, micro1 says “Data should be primarily in English”, and that “current demand is strongest for companies based in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada.”

What is never included

Personal data stays out: client staff named in interview notes, personal details in résumés and staffing files, timesheets tied to a named consultant, fees and bank details. Our page on what is never included shows where each hides.

For a consulting firm, the bigger line is client confidentiality, as our own advice. The engagement letter usually says three things. The deliverables belong to the client. The client’s information, the data it handed over, its financials, its board papers, stays confidential and is the client’s. And the firm keeps its own methods, tools, templates and general know-how. The line between the last two is where counsel earns the fee. A workplan template is the firm’s; the same workplan filled in with the client’s numbers may not be. Our page on client-owned work and NDAs goes through how to sort an engagement folder, and counsel has the final word.

Some engagements are harder still. Work for a regulated client, a public company before an announcement, or a deal under a non-disclosure agreement carries terms that may rule the whole folder out. Read those contracts first, and list them separately on the call.

What usually remains is a great deal. The proposal library, the methodology, the training material, the internal debates, the firm-side review of every draft, and the lessons learned. That is the firm’s own record of how it thinks.

How de-identification works

micro1 says the firm doesn’t need to anonymize its own files. Its page answers: “No, micro1 has processes for de-identifying and transforming sensitive information.”

micro1 says the two sides confirm four things before any participation. Among them, “De-identified before sharing”, explained as “Personal and identifying information is removed or transformed before your data is shared with third parties”, and “Defined retention periods”, explained as “Raw data is deleted according to an agreed schedule”.

On protection, it says: “Personally identifiable information (PII) is removed when relevant, access is restricted to a limited number of authorized team members, and customer data is processed through isolated pipelines that prevent it from being commingled with other engagements.” It says “certain datasets may undergo synthetic rewrites that preserve workflow structure while reducing direct ties to original records”, and that “companies are given the opportunity to review representative samples before prepared data is used.”

On a change request thread, as our own illustration, the client’s name, the people copied and the site names are the identifying parts. The scope that moved, the reason, the effort traded and the way the partner framed it to the client are the work. For a consulting firm the synthetic rewrite matters: a client can sometimes be recognised from its situation even with its name gone. Ask how micro1 would handle that, and review the samples. Each step is set out on how de-identification works.

What decides the price

micro1 publishes three tiers on its data partnerships page. $100K-500K for “Qualified Enterprise Data Partnerships” (indicative, not an offer). $500K-3M for “Large-scale operational datasets or ongoing participation across multiple teams and business functions” (indicative, not an offer). $3M+ for “Highly unique, proprietary operational data” (indicative, not an offer). Above them, it says “Compensation is based on the quality, uniqueness, and value of the data provided”.

The factors, in micro1’s words: “dataset size and volume, workflow complexity, data quality, domain expertise represented, and the uniqueness of the operational knowledge contained within the dataset.” Its estimate page asks for headcount, years of data and headquarters, and says the final payout “is determined based on data sources, volume, quality, access terms, and due diligence.”

As our own reading, for a consulting firm:

Expertise. A practice that has done the same kind of work in one industry for fifteen years holds knowledge few others write down. micro1 names “domain expertise represented” as a factor.
The firm-side record. Review comments, internal debates and lessons learned are the firm’s own, and they show the reasoning. A folder of final decks shows only the outcome.
Access terms. micro1 names “access terms” as a factor. A firm whose engagement letters clearly leave it its own methods has more it can license than one whose letters assign everything to the client.
Years and breadth. Several practice areas, several years, several systems.

What lowers it: mailboxes deleted when consultants left, engagement folders archived as final PDFs only, and contracts that keep most of the record with the client. Our page on how many years of records count shows where older files usually hide, including former staff mailboxes.

micro1’s steps say it pays “in full within 30 days of acceptance, with payments typically ranging from $100K to over $3M” (indicative, not an offer). On 9 October 2026 it announced a commitment to spend $1 billion over 12 months acquiring and licensing enterprise operational data. Each factor is explained on what decides the price of your records.

Which programme fits

This page covers micro1’s programme. Its line is 30 or more people, now or at peak, or a firm of any size outside the US. micro1’s referral page lists the enterprise requirements as “30+ employees”, “US and Western markets”, “English” and “All industries”. Count partners, consultants, analysts and the operations team. A firm that reached 50 people and now has 20 kept the records of 50. The estimate asks your headcount and names the programme that fits it.

A closed firm can still license its records. micro1’s referral page lists a Defunct Company Data Partnership: “We are acquiring data from companies that are no longer operating.” Its listed requirements are “30+ employees”, “10+ Countries”, “English” and “All industries”, and the company compensation it lists is $100K-$3M+ (indicative, not an offer) “for approved data packages”. For a firm that has wound down, the first job is to find the mailboxes and the document store before the subscriptions end. That, and who can sign, is on the page for closed companies.

A manufacturing or industrial company keeps a corrective-action trail that reads much like a consulting issue log, with a defect where the firm has a client problem. A publisher or education company shares the review culture: drafts, red pens, a senior reader’s questions and a second version. And a hardware engineering company faces the same split between the client’s deliverable and the firm’s method.

TrustPast

Questions and answers

Aren’t our files all the client’s?

Not all of them, though many are. The engagement letter usually gives the client the deliverables and its own information, and leaves the firm its methods, templates and know-how. That is our advice, not micro1’s; counsel should read the letters before anything is listed.

Does micro1 want consulting firms?

micro1’s pages don’t name consulting as a category. They ask for “templates, operational frameworks, and other business process artifacts” and data that “reflects how work is actually performed within an organization”, and the referral page lists “All industries”.

Do we have to remove client names from our email first?

No. micro1 says it “has processes for de-identifying and transforming sensitive information”, and that personal and identifying information is removed or transformed before the data is shared with third parties. Client confidentiality is a separate question for your contracts.

What if we are a firm of 40 in Canada?

micro1’s line is 30 or more employees, and it says current demand is strongest for companies in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada. micro1 decides at application.

How much does micro1 pay?

micro1 lists payments typically ranging from $100K to over $3M (indicative, not an offer). It says each partnership is evaluated individually.

Can we review what is prepared before it is used?

micro1 says companies are given the opportunity to review representative samples before prepared data is used.