Reuben AI

    Diligence for firms running real deal volume

    A multi-partner venture firm does not have a diligence problem on any single deal. It has a consistency problem across hundreds of them. Reuben AI structures the work itself rather than only the output, so the diligence an associate runs in their first month is comparable to the diligence a partner ran three years earlier, and both are defensible when an LP asks about them later.

    Book a diligence demoEmbed diligence in your platform

    Volume is what breaks unstructured diligence

    At firm scale the pipeline is not the constraint. The constraint is that every deal is worked slightly differently, so the committee has no consistent basis for comparison. One partner leans on references, another on financial detail, a third on market structure. Each approach is defensible alone. Together they make portfolio-level judgement guesswork. Structuring the workstreams and their evidence requirements removes that variance without flattening judgement, because the analysis stays with the people and only the scaffolding is fixed.

    Associate work that partners can trust on sight

    New analysts produce uneven diligence not through inability but through not knowing what a complete workstream looks like at your firm. With evidence requirements attached to each workstream, completeness is visible rather than assumed, and a partner reviewing the file can see where a claim came from and how strongly it is held. Review shifts from re-doing the work to interrogating it.

    Evidence that survives the room

    The most expensive moment in an IC is a challenge that nobody can answer with a source. When each claim carries its document and tier, a push-back gets resolved in the meeting instead of becoming a follow-up that delays the decision by a week. Where the evidence genuinely does not exist, the memo records it as an open risk, and the committee decides with that visible rather than discovering it in year two.

    Round context that carries forward

    Venture diligence is never a single event. The company you diligence at seed comes back at Series A with new information and, often, a different team assessing it. Because findings, sources and open questions stay on the investment record, a follow-on decision starts from what was underwritten last time rather than from a blank page. Round structure, dilution and prior syndicate dynamics sit alongside the diligence rather than in a separate model.

    The record an LP audit asks for

    Years after a decision, the question is not whether the thesis was right. It is what the firm knew at the time and what process it followed. An immutable, decision-level trail answers that directly. It also answers the question emerging managers get asked during fundraising, which is how the investment process actually works rather than how the deck describes it.

    Diligence at three levels

    The same engine runs at three altitudes. A company or asset can be the subject, a fund can be the subject, or a manager can be the subject. Findings at the lower level roll up, so a position in a fund can be read through to the underlying holdings and back out to the portfolio it sits inside.

    Company and asset level

    Diligence with the company or asset as the subject: documents, financials, cap table, contracts and market position, each finding bound to its source.

    Company and asset level

    Fund level

    Diligence with the fund as the subject: structure, terms, jurisdiction, portfolio construction and existing holdings assessed on look-through.

    Fund level

    Manager level

    Diligence with the manager as the subject: track record, team, process consistency, operational controls and governance, evidenced rather than asserted.

    Manager level

    What makes the diligence deep

    Diligence is only as good as the context behind the questions it asks. Credit diligence and venture diligence do not ask the same things, a fund in one jurisdiction is not assessed like a fund in another, and a company profile that stops updating at signing stops being useful. Asset class coverage, jurisdiction and vehicle structures, market research and continuously updating company and manager profiles all feed the same diligence record.

    Asset class coverage

    Native asset classes and sub-asset overlays, so evidence requirements differ by what is being assessed.

    Market research

    Market structure and comparables attached to the deal rather than held in a separate document.

    Go deeper on diligence

    Each page below covers one part of the diligence layer in detail. Start with the one closest to the decision you are making.

    AI due diligence

    How extraction, tiering and screening work across the document set.

    Questions we are asked in diligence demos

    How much of our existing process has to change?

    Workstream templates are configured to the process your firm already runs during onboarding, starting with a requirements session of at least 45 minutes. The intent is to make your process consistent and evidenced, not to replace it with a generic one.

    Does it work across stages, from pre-seed to growth?

    Yes. Evidence requirements differ by stage, so templates are set per strategy. Pre-money and post-money SAFEs, convertibles and priced rounds are handled with full conversion math that flows into later rounds.

    What happens to diligence we have already done elsewhere?

    Existing documents and notes can be brought into the workspace so the record starts from your history rather than from zero. What that migration involves for your firm is scoped during onboarding.

    Can the investment committee see confidence, not just conclusions?

    Yes. Section-level confidence reflects the tiering of the claims beneath it, so the committee can see which parts of a recommendation rest on verified evidence and which rest on self-reported information.

    Related reading