In difficult transaction files, people often pretend they have a method problem when what they really have is an evidence problem.

That distinction matters.

If adjusted earnings are weak, if normalized free cash flow is negative, and if the purchase price only survives by leaning heavily on inventory or fixed assets, then the next question is not philosophical. It is practical.

Can those assets actually be supported?

Not assumed. Not described confidently. Not defended with enthusiasm.

Supported.

If the books are unreliable, then book value is not good enough. If the equipment is material, a qualified appraisal may be required. If the inventory is material, credible verification may be required. If neither exists, then everyone involved has a choice to make: spend the money to establish the support, or accept the risk that the value will not bridge the gap.

What I often see instead is avoidance.

People do not want the extra cost. They do not want the inconvenience. They do not want one more professional telling them the transaction requires more proof than they hoped. So they resist the evidence issue and then spend far more time trying to talk around it.

That never works for long.

A transaction cannot be made stronger by becoming more argumentative. If the case for value depends on the assets, then the assets must be proven with something more substantial than confidence and conversation.

This is not complicated. If the support is missing, the conclusion should reflect that plainly.

The deal does not need a different method. It needs better proof.