Uncover Material Discrepancies and Evidence Gaps
Interrogate the mapped data room to expose conflicting metrics, legal liabilities, unverified assumptions, and governance risks. Flag contradictory metrics across decks, financial models, cap tables, and commercial contracts. Quantify the severity of each identified gap in terms of investor deal-breaker risk and regulatory compliance.
Isolating contradictions and risks allows the founder to address fatal deal vulnerabilities in private before entering investor negotiations. It guarantees that high-impact evidence gaps are flagged and prioritised for immediate remediation.
A prioritised risk register identifying all numerical contradictions, missing legal signatures, unverified assumptions, and governance flaws. Each risk must include a severity rating and a description of its potential impact on investor confidence.
Five questions an expert would ask when reviewing your output
Use these to challenge assumptions, pressure-test your logic, and check the quality of this action's output in the context of the parent task and wider venture development.
- 1
What is the single most dangerous numerical contradiction between your cap table, board minutes, and articles of association?
- 2
How does the absence of signed founder IP assignment agreements expose the venture to valuation haircuts or deal failure?
- 3
Why do commercial revenue figures in the deck differ from the revenue recognised in the formal financial statements?
- 4
Which customer contracts contain change-of-control or termination clauses that pose a material risk during investment?
- 5
How would an external legal team challenge the validity of your regulatory compliance statements based on current filings?