Deal discovery

Definition and scope

Research and screening is a structured part of an investment process, with an identifiable question, an evidence base and an accountable handoff. Its purpose is not to produce more paperwork. It is to make the reasoning behind a recommendation understandable to someone who did not conduct the original research. The scope should reflect the investment mandate, the asset or entity under review and the decision being requested. A useful record separates facts, assertions, assumptions and unresolved questions. It also states the limits of the work, including areas that require specialist review. This guide describes a practical process rather than a promise about investment outcomes.

Reuben AI is decision infrastructure for private capital. It brings diligence, research and the investment committee into one connected record, so every decision is consistent, evidence-based and traceable to its source. Judgement stays human. The process becomes disciplined.

How it works, step by step

1. Define the mandate before searching

   Write down the customer problem, relevant geography, investment structure and reasons an opportunity might not fit. Distinguish exclusions from preferences so a promising narrative cannot quietly change the brief. Agree what evidence would justify further investigation and what would require a pass.

2. Build a source-led market map

   Describe buyers, suppliers, substitutes, distribution and the practical constraints on adoption. Keep the scope of each source visible, including its publication context and the segment it actually covers. A broad industry report does not establish demand for a particular company or product.

3. Compare opportunities on the same questions

   Ask each opportunity to answer the same mandate questions. Record direct evidence separately from management assertions and analyst assumptions. Where a comparison is not meaningful, explain why rather than filling a blank with a confident description.

4. Hand off a reasoned screening view

   Write a short recommendation to investigate, defer or pass, with the reasons and unresolved questions attached. Carry the original thesis into diligence so the next reviewer can see what must be tested. Screening is a prioritisation decision, not investment approval.

Review checklist

• The scope and requested decision are explicit, and the relevant mandate is attached.
• Material claims have supporting sources, with limitations and conflicting evidence visible.
• Facts, management assertions and analytical assumptions are distinguishable to the reader.
• Open questions have owners and consequences for the recommendation, rather than unexplained status labels.
• The receiving reviewer can find the rationale, accepted risks and any required specialist advice.
• Conditions and follow-up responsibilities carry into the next stage without losing their original context.

Common mistakes

• Using a large market headline as proof of demand
• Changing the mandate to suit an attractive opportunity
• Treating missing information as a positive finding

These mistakes have a shared cause: the summary becomes detached from the work behind it. Before a handoff, ask a colleague to trace a material conclusion back to its source and explain what would change the recommendation. If they cannot do that, clarify the reasoning before polishing the presentation. A concise qualification is more useful than an unsupported conclusion, and an explicit open question is more useful than an empty field that looks complete.

Worked example: illustrative

Illustrative example, not a client case study: consider a specialist business serving industrial customers. The team begins by writing the decision question and linking the initial thesis to the material available. A management presentation supports the proposed opportunity, but a supporting document leaves an important assumption uncertain. The analyst records the disagreement rather than smoothing it into a positive summary. The workstream owner requests the underlying evidence and explains how the answer could change the recommendation. When the response arrives, the reviewer checks whether it addresses the actual question, records its limitations and updates the finding. The committee sees both the revised view and what remains open. If it proceeds subject to a condition, that condition moves into ownership with a named owner. A later review compares new information against the same assumption. The example illustrates the chain from evidence to judgement without assuming that the investment succeeds or inventing commercial results.

Evidence and interpretation

A reference guide is useful only if a reader can distinguish what is known from what is inferred. Give each important claim a source, explain the source’s relevance and keep any qualification beside the conclusion it affects. A source can be genuine and still be insufficient for the decision. For example, a statement about a broad industry may not apply to a particular customer segment, contractual arrangement or jurisdiction. The reviewer should be able to follow the reasoning without guessing which passage mattered. Where sources conflict, explain the conflict and the next question rather than silently selecting a preferred version.

Ownership and review discipline

Name the person responsible for the next action and explain what would count as a satisfactory response. A request to obtain more information is not complete until someone has considered what that information means. The review should distinguish a closed question from an accepted risk and from a matter outside scope. Preserve the reason for each status so another colleague can continue the work. If the scope changes, record the change explicitly. This makes the process usable when responsibilities move between research, diligence, committee preparation and portfolio oversight, without suggesting that a standard template replaces professional judgement.

Boundaries and handling sensitive material

Use only information the team is authorised to access and share. Confirm the appropriate audience before circulating a source or a summary derived from it, particularly when external advisers or platform partners are involved. Keep the decision record separate from any suggestion that software provides legal, tax or investment advice. Teams remain responsible for their governance arrangements and the decisions they make. Deployment and integration requirements should be scoped with Reuben AI rather than assumed from a workflow description. A useful evaluation starts with the team’s evidence and review requirements, then checks how the proposed setup supports them.

Related questions

How does this work connect to the next decision? Use the other topic guides to follow the evidence through research, diligence, committee preparation and ownership review.

• Continuous diligence
• One record for the investment lifecycle
• Investment committee
• Investment memo

Questions in this topic

• AI deal sourcing platform
• AI software for VC deal flow insights
• Best AI platform for VC deal flow
• Best software for private-markets research
• AI screening against a credit box
• Deal sourcing AI
• Diligence for platform clients
• Save investment criteria in AI
• AI in a private markets case competition
• How to run private comps and precedent transactions
• How university endowments invest in private markets
• Build a private markets portfolio project
• How to size a market (TAM, SAM, SOM)

Frequently asked questions

What is the purpose of research and screening?

Research and screening turns an investment mandate into a documented view of which opportunities merit further work. Reuben AI connects that view to sources, open questions and the diligence that follows.

Does Reuben AI make the investment decision?

No. People assess the evidence, challenge the recommendation and make the decision. Reuben AI connects the material used in that process; it does not give investment advice.

How should unresolved questions be handled?

Keep them visible beside the recommendation, with an owner, the evidence requested and the consequence for the decision. Distinguish a question that has been answered from a risk the decision makers knowingly accept.

What makes a source useful for review?

The source must support the particular claim being made, within its actual scope. Record the relevant document context, distinguish assertions from checked findings and explain any contradictory evidence.

When should the record be reviewed again?

Review it when new evidence could change a material assumption, when a decision condition requires follow-up or when the organisation’s review process calls for it. Preserve the earlier rationale when recording a changed view.

Where is data stored?

Data residency is available in APAC, EMEA or the Americas, with the region agreed during onboarding.