Reuben AI

    Une due diligence qui intègre ses propres preuves

    How should an investment team prioritise evidence gaps before IC?

    Prioritise evidence gaps by whether they could change mandate eligibility, the investment thesis, downside exposure or the proposed approval conditions. Give each material gap an owner, a required source and a review deadline, and show the committee which conclusions remain provisional.

    How do company, vehicle, fund and manager findings roll up without losing source links?

    Keep each finding attached to the entity it describes and to the document version that supports it, then link it into the relevant vehicle, fund and manager review. A roll-up should explain the relationship and any exposure assumptions rather than copying a conclusion without its qualifications.

    What investment red flags should stop a diligence process?

    Pause or stop when verified findings breach the mandate, expose an unacceptable legal or integrity concern, or undermine a material claim that cannot be responsibly resolved. Distinguish an established adverse finding from missing evidence, and let the authorised team document whether to stop, investigate or proceed with explicit conditions.

    Judgement stays human. The process becomes disciplined.

    Short answer

    What is continuous diligence?

    Continuous diligence is the repeated testing of an investment thesis as evidence changes, rather than a report that ends at approval. Reuben AI keeps fully sourced findings, unresolved questions and committee reasoning connected through ownership.

    Written by Katriona Lee, Founder, Reuben AI

    Last reviewed

    Definition and scope

    Continuous diligence 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. Set the scope and responsibility

      Identify whether the review concerns a company or asset, vehicle, fund or manager. Record the jurisdiction and investment structure because they affect the questions to ask. Assign workstream owners and identify where legal, tax, technical or other specialist advice is needed.

    2. Register evidence and its limits

      Connect each material finding to the document or research that supports it. Record whether a statement is self-reported, checked against another source or supported by independent evidence. Keep conflicting material visible rather than choosing the document that best supports the preferred conclusion.

    3. Resolve gaps through accountable questions

      Turn each material uncertainty into a question with an owner, a requested source and a decision consequence. A question can remain open if the committee knowingly accepts the uncertainty. It should not disappear merely because a report is ready for circulation.

    4. Continue review after the decision

      Carry conditions and thesis assumptions into ownership. When new information changes a material finding, preserve the earlier reasoning and document the revised interpretation. Continuous diligence means an accountable review process, not a promise that every external event is detected automatically.

    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

    • Confusing document collection with completed diligence
    • Closing unresolved questions without recording the reason
    • Treating the approval memo as the end of the evidence record

    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 proposed investment in a manager-led fund. 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.

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

    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.

    Questions in this topic

    Frequently asked questions

    What is the purpose of continuous diligence?
    Continuous diligence is the repeated testing of an investment thesis as evidence changes, rather than a report that ends at approval. Reuben AI keeps fully sourced findings, unresolved questions and committee reasoning connected through ownership.
    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.
    What is an evidence gap in investment diligence?
    An evidence gap is a missing, outdated or insufficiently supported fact needed to evaluate a material claim. It is not proof that the claim is false.
    Who should own unresolved diligence questions?
    Assign a named workstream owner to obtain and assess the evidence, with an accountable deal lead responsible for escalation to the committee.
    When should missing evidence delay an IC decision?
    Delay when the missing evidence could change eligibility or a material conclusion and the committee cannot responsibly bound the uncertainty. Record the reason and the evidence needed to resume.
    How should low-priority gaps be treated?
    Keep them visible with a rationale for deferral and a review date. Low priority should mean limited decision relevance, not silent removal.
    Should a company finding automatically become a fund finding?
    No. Explain the exposure, ownership relationship and relevance to the fund before drawing a fund-level conclusion.
    How should duplicate findings be handled?
    Reference the same underlying finding where appropriate and identify overlapping exposure, rather than counting copied findings as independent evidence.
    What belongs beside a rolled-up conclusion?
    Include the entity, source reference, document date or version, material qualifications and the reviewer responsible for the interpretation.
    How should missing underlying data appear?
    State the coverage boundary and the unavailable evidence explicitly. Do not present a partial roll-up as a complete portfolio view.
    How do we distinguish an investment red flag from an unresolved evidence gap?
    A red flag is an adverse finding or credible warning that needs investigation; an evidence gap is insufficient support for a conclusion. A gap may reveal a red flag, but absence alone is not proof of wrongdoing.
    How should a resolved red flag stay visible to the committee?
    Keep the original concern, investigation evidence, resolution rationale, reviewer and date in the decision record. Show any residual risk and required follow-up alongside the resolution.
    Who authorises restarting a paused review?
    The authority specified by the investment team’s governance process should confirm the required evidence has been reviewed and explain the restart decision.
    Should every concern stop the process?
    No. Assess materiality, source reliability and mandate implications. Escalate unresolved material concerns rather than treating every minor discrepancy as disqualifying.

    Reuben AI exécute en parallèle les audits financier, juridique, opérationnel, de marché et de l'équipe sur un même ensemble documentaire. Chaque affirmation extraite est rattachée à son document source et classée comme autodéclarée, vérifiée ou triangulée. La note du comité d'investissement est directement générée à partir de ces conclusions au lieu d'en être une transcription, garantissant que la chaîne de preuves sous-jacente à une décision reste vérifiable longtemps après sa prise.

    This is the evidence-building phase of Reuben AI's living decision record. Research sources, findings, assumptions and unresolved questions stay connected as the record moves into investment committee review and, after a decision, ownership.

    Réserver une démonstration de due diligenceIntégrer la due diligence dans votre plateforme

    Les cinq volets sont exécutés simultanément, non en séquence

    La plupart des fonds effectuent la due diligence de manière séquentielle. L'analyse financière attend la stabilisation de la data room, l'analyse juridique attend l'analyse financière, l'étude de marché se déroule isolément, et l'évaluation de l'équipe se résume à des notes d'appels dans une boîte de réception. Le coût ne se limite pas au temps écoulé. Lorsque les volets ne communiquent pas, un problème de concentration de clientèle identifié lors de l'examen commercial ne croise jamais la question de la comptabilisation des revenus de l'analyse financière, et cette corrélation ne fait surface qu'au comité d'investissement ou plus tard. Reuben AI déploie les cinq volets sur le même matériel source, rendant toute constatation soulevée dans l'un visible par les autres tant que le dossier reste ouvert.

    Chaque affirmation est hiérarchisée par rapport à sa source

    Une conclusion de due diligence ne vaut que par sa provenance. Chaque affirmation extraite conserve son document source, son emplacement exact et un niveau de confirmation : autodéclarée lorsqu'elle provient de documents fournis par la cible, vérifiée lorsqu'elle est confirmée par un document indépendant, triangulée lorsque deux sources indépendantes ou plus concordent. Les affirmations sans source sont signalées plutôt qu'intégrées silencieusement. Cette distinction permet à un associé de contester une conclusion lors du comité et d'obtenir une réponse fondée sur des preuves et non sur des souvenirs.

    La note est générée à partir des conclusions

    La note destinée au comité d'investissement est assemblée à partir des conclusions sous-jacentes, avec un niveau de confiance par section reflétant le classement des sources. Rien n'est ressaisi, ce qui empêche tout écart entre la note et les travaux d'audit. Lorsque les preuves sont faibles, la note le mentionne expressément au lieu de masquer la lacune, ce qui constitue souvent l'information la plus précieuse du document. Les analystes éditent, les associés révisent, et le comité consulte une version synthétisée qui renvoie systématiquement vers chaque source.

    Une transaction, de la data room à la décision

    Un parcours type : les documents arrivent dans l'espace de travail et sont analysés nativement, notamment les états financiers, les tables de capitalisation, les contrats, les procès-verbaux de conseil et la documentation technique. Les cinq volets s'ouvrent avec leurs exigences de preuve associées. L'extraction associe les affirmations aux sources et aux niveaux de confirmation. Les notes de référence et de prises de renseignements informelles sont enregistrées avec leur attribution et pondérées séparément des références formelles. Les questions ouvertes restent enregistrées comme telles sans être résolues par hypothèse. La note est générée, révisée, puis la décision est enregistrée avec les preuves qui la soutiennent. Des années plus tard, ce même registre permet d'établir ce que le fonds savait et à quelle date.

    Le rôle de la due diligence dans le cycle de vie

    La vérification préalable constitue l'étape de collecte de preuves du Registre vivant. Le sourcing initialise le registre; la vérification préalable l'alimente avec des informations vérifiées à travers les cinq volets canoniques: financier, juridique, opérationnel, marché et équipe. Le suivi de portefeuille hérite ensuite de la référence établie à ce stade, afin que les écarts soient mesurés par rapport à ce qui a réellement été souscrit. Cette connexion garantit que les conclusions ne sont jamais saisies à nouveau ni perdues lors du passage de relais.

    Due diligence à chaque niveau, consolidée au niveau du portefeuille

    La due diligence s'effectue à six niveaux : l'actif ou l'entreprise, la transaction, le véhicule, le fonds, le gérant et le portefeuille. Les constats à chaque niveau sont interconnectés, de sorte qu'une participation individuelle peut être analysée à travers sa transaction, son véhicule et son fonds jusqu'au gérant, ainsi qu'au sein de l'ensemble du portefeuille dans lequel elle s'inscrit.

    Niveau entreprise et actif

    Due diligence centrée sur l'entreprise ou l'actif : documents, états financiers, table de capitalisation, contrats et positionnement sur le marché, chaque constatation étant reliée à sa source.

    Niveau entreprise et actif

    Niveau véhicule

    Due diligence centrée sur le véhicule : SPV, véhicules de co-investissement et de continuation, structures nourricières et parallèles, modalités, gouvernance et juridiction.

    Niveau véhicule

    Niveau fonds

    Due diligence centrée sur le fonds : structure, conditions, juridiction, construction de portefeuille et participations existantes évaluées jusqu'aux participations sous-jacentes.

    Niveau fonds

    Niveau gestionnaire

    Diligence centrée sur le gestionnaire : historique de performance, équipe, cohérence du processus, contrôles opérationnels et gouvernance, étayés par des preuves plutôt que de simples affirmations.

    Niveau gestionnaire
    The six levels, linked in one record

    Asset or portfolio company

    The business, property or loan itself.

    What to check

    Business quality, cash flows, collateral, management, legal and operational risk.

    Typical evidence gaps

    Unaudited figures, missing contracts, unverified management claims.

    Receives from below

    Source documents and evidence directly.

    Passes up

    Findings, risks and open questions on the underlying business, property or loan. Next: deal.

    Read the guide to the six levels of private markets diligence

    Ce qui fait la profondeur de la diligence

    La due diligence ne vaut que par le contexte qui sous-tend les questions posées. La due diligence de crédit et la due diligence de venture capital ne traitent pas des mêmes sujets, un fonds établi dans une juridiction n'est pas évalué de la même manière qu'un fonds dans une autre, et le profil d'une entreprise qui cesse d'être mis à jour au moment de la signature perd son utilité. La couverture des classes d'actifs, les juridictions et structures de véhicules, la recherche de marché et la mise à jour continue des profils d'entreprises et de gestionnaires alimentent toutes un même dossier de due diligence.

    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.

    À qui s'adresse cette solution

    Due diligence pour les sociétés de venture capital

    Une due diligence cohérente entre chargés d'affaires et associés, des preuves qui résistent aux débats en comité d'investissement et aux audits des LP, ainsi qu'un contexte de tour de table qui alimente les décisions de suivi.

    Due diligence pour les sociétés de venture capital

    Due diligence pour les plateformes

    Intégrez la due diligence sous forme d'infrastructure : marque blanche, composants, accès via API ou agent, en coexistence avec votre modèle de données existant et votre processus de revue des prestataires.

    Due diligence pour les plateformes

    Approfondir la due diligence

    Chaque page ci-dessous détaille un volet du module de due diligence. Commencez par celle qui correspond le plus à la décision à prendre.

    AI due diligence

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

    Questions récurrentes lors des démonstrations de due diligence

    Comment Reuben AI évite-t-il les résultats de due diligence hallucinés ?

    Chaque affirmation est ancrée dans un document source et classée selon son niveau de preuve : autodéclarée, vérifiée ou triangulée. Les affirmations sans source traçable sont signalées et exclues du mémo par défaut, empêchant ainsi une déclaration non sourcée d'être présentée comme un résultat d'analyse.

    Cela remplace-t-il les vérifications juridiques, fiscales ou comptables ?

    Non. L'outil structure et accélère la couche analytique et produit des dossiers de preuves que les conseillers peuvent exploiter. La validation juridique, fiscale et comptable reste sous la responsabilité de conseillers qualifiés.

    Les volets d'analyse peuvent-ils être adaptés selon la stratégie ?

    Oui. Les modèles de volets d'analyse et les exigences de preuve sont configurables par classe d'actifs ou par stratégie, car la due diligence en crédit et la due diligence en venture capital posent des questions différentes à des documents différents.

    Comment débutent les travaux de due diligence ?

    Chaque client commence par une session d'analyse des besoins d'au moins 45 minutes, après laquelle l'espace de travail est configuré selon le processus de due diligence du fonds avant toute utilisation. Le périmètre et les conditions sont convenus lors de l'intégration.

    Lectures connexes