Answers
Each partner runs diligence with a different AI and the notes never reconcile. What fixes that?
Putting what the diligence has already established in one place that every partner's assistant reads, instead of in two sets of notes that only meet at the committee. Each finding goes in once — the revenue figure that was confirmed and the document that confirmed it, the customer reference that came back weak, the question still open — and from then on any partner's assistant opens the work already holding it, whichever tool that partner uses. What this removes is not disagreement between partners, which is the job: it removes two assistants reporting different numbers with equal confidence because each one read a different half of the material.
Last updated September 5, 2026
The divergence is not disagreement — nobody was wrong
On a live deal two or three partners work in parallel for a fortnight. One goes through the financials, another takes customer calls, a third reads the team. Each is working with an assistant, and each assistant knows only what that partner pasted into it. So the memos differ, and the first twenty minutes of the meeting go to establishing which of two revenue figures is the confirmed one and whether anybody actually spoke to the churned account. No partner made a mistake. The record was simply never joined.
One record per deal, written while the diligence runs
A deal gets a project, and what is established goes into it as it is established rather than at write-up. A confirmed figure is recorded with the document it came from. A question that has been answered is recorded as answered, with who answered it. A question still open stays visibly open. Every partner's assistant reads that project at the start of a piece of work, so the second partner's assistant already knows what the first one settled, and the memo it helps draft starts from the joined record instead of from one partner's half of it.
Confirmed, proposed and still open are three different things
What matters in diligence is not what is written down, it is what a person has confirmed. An assistant can propose a finding after reading a file, and that proposal is stored and shown as a proposal — it is not the deal's position until a partner approves it. When a figure is superseded by a better source, the replacement says which one it replaces and the earlier text stays in the history rather than disappearing. That is what lets a partner ask, in the meeting, which line is confirmed and get an answer instead of an assertion.
What it looks like in practice
Two partners run diligence on a Series A. One confirms annual revenue from the audited statements. The other, working from the founder's deck read two days earlier, is carrying a figure eleven per cent higher. Both assistants report their number with the same confidence, and nobody notices until committee. With one record for the deal, the second partner's assistant opens the work already holding the confirmed figure — dated, sourced to the audited statement, and marked as superseding the deck number. The earlier figure has not vanished; it is in the history, which is what turns the discrepancy itself into a question worth putting to the founder. The meeting then spends its time on whether the growth rate justifies the price, which is the part that needed two partners in the room.
Questions people ask about this
- Does this mean the AI writes our investment memo?
- No. What changes is the input. The assistant helping with a memo starts from what the deal has actually established and from what is still open, rather than from whatever that partner happened to paste in. A finding an assistant proposed and no partner approved stays visibly a proposal, and it never reaches the next partner looking like a confirmed fact. The judgement, and the memo, stay exactly where they were.
- Diligence material is confidential. What actually goes in here?
- Only what you write. Nothing is read from your data room, your inbox or your CRM, and each deal is its own project, so what is recorded for one deal never reaches work on another. In practice what earns its place is the conclusions and their sources — the confirmed figure and the document it came from — not the confidential documents themselves, which do not need to be here for any of this to work.
- What happens to the record when the deal closes, or dies?
- It stays with that deal's project, which is what makes it worth having later — a pass you revisit two years on, or a portfolio company whose diligence you want to reread. Entries are kept with the condition that ends them, so a figure that only held for one quarter says so instead of being read later as current. Nothing is removed on its own.
Where this is verifiable
Product documentation on this site (How it works, Install), the sanctioned product spec in the repository for how approval, supersession and expiry are recorded, and the Privacy Policy for what is stored and who can reach it. Everything described here is behaviour the tools apply today, not roadmap, and this page is not investment advice.
https://www.arroway.app/en/answers/keeping-due-diligence-notes-consistent-across-partners