Condensed co-investment memorandum
Short by design — a check on the lead, not a parallel full IDD.
- Reviewed by
- Partner and IC
- Defensibility
- Every claim cites a source span; length discipline enforced by workflow design.
Co-investment · Workflow
Co-investment review for teams that need source-backed financial judgment.
A condensed memorandum on a sponsor-led co-investment — with an explicit section on where you disagree with the lead and a recommended side-letter position if the lead's terms are accepted as written.
Closed-system workflow. Source-backed outputs. Versioned review.
Engagement console
Source intake through review state
Source intake
- S-014 · PPM.pdfadmitted
- S-021 · LPA.pdfadmitted
- S-028 · DDQ.xlsxscanning
Workflow stage
disagreement register
Stage running · citations required
Evidence anchors
[S-014 · p.42 ¶3][S-021 · cl. 8.2][S-028 · tab 3]
Open risks
Lead thesis variance
severity · high · cited
Draft artifact
Co-invest memo · v1 draft
schema valid · 47 claims cited
Review state
Partner review
Awaiting challenge before lock
Co-investments fail review when disagreement with the lead is implicit, not explicit.
Co-investments arrive with the lead investor's memorandum, GP deck, and sponsor model. Teams often treat the lead's thesis as baseline and add a short note. Disagreements are buried in narrative or left unstated. The instrument is a check on the lead — not a parallel full underwriting — but silence on a point of disagreement is treated as agreement, and that choice belongs to the principal.
- Lead thesis is copied without independent verification against GP materials
- Disagreements are softened in narrative rather than surfaced with citations
- Side-letter positions are drafted without referencing the lead's accepted terms
- Full primary IDD length is used for a question that needs a condensed read
- No durable record of what the House challenged before committing
Who uses this workflow
Built for senior finance teams who need committee-ready artifacts — not chat transcripts.
- Family office principal
Use caseCo-investment alongside a trusted lead
Moment of needAllocation arrives with the lead's memorandum and GP deck
OutputCondensed co-investment memorandum
- PE partner
Use caseIndependent read on sponsor-led co-invest
Moment of needThe question is whether the lead's thesis holds against an independent read
OutputDisagreement register with citations on both sides
- Investment committee
Use caseFast co-invest decision
Moment of needCommittee needs a short, cited read — not a full primary IDD
OutputSide-letter recommendation if lead terms are accepted
- Independent sponsor
Use caseCheck on lead underwriting quality
Moment of needCo-invest terms differ from the lead's primary fund terms
OutputExplicit where-we-disagree section
Admitted source envelope
Source materials enter the engagement as a controlled register — scanned, classified, and scoped before the workflow runs.
Source register
Pending admission · scanner gate
| Source | Description | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Lead investor's memorandum. | 01 | |
| GP deck. | 02 | |
| Sponsor model and assumptions sheet. | 03 |
Workflow process
A versioned pipeline — each stage records what happened, what you can review, and what output it produces.
Stage pipeline
Topological DAG · runtime enforced
01
Admit lead and GP materials
Lead investor memorandum, GP deck, and sponsor model enter the engagement envelope.
- Recorded
- Source admission audit rows with hash per document.
- Review
- Principal confirms materials reflect the co-invest offer as written.
- Output
- Admitted source register.
02
Extract the lead thesis
lead_thesis_review extracts claims, figures, and risks the lead surfaced — each anchored to a source span.
- Recorded
- Thesis extract with per-claim citations to the lead memorandum.
- Review
- Analyst verifies the extract against the lead deck.
- Output
- Structured lead thesis with citation map.
03
Build the disagreement register
disagreement_register enumerates where an independent read of GP deck and model contradicts or qualifies the lead thesis.
- Recorded
- Disagreement entries with severity and citations on both sides.
- Review
- Partner decides which disagreements stay on the cover.
- Output
- Disagreement register with dual citations.
04
Draft side-letter recommendation
Recommended side-letter position composed if the lead's terms are accepted as written.
- Recorded
- Side-letter draft tied to cited term language.
- Review
- Partner and counsel review before terms are proposed.
- Output
- Side-letter recommendation section.
05
Synthesise the condensed memorandum
synthesise composes the short memorandum, disagreement section, and side-letter recommendation.
- Recorded
- Draft version and validation result.
- Review
- Partner sign-off — the memorandum stays short by design.
- Output
- Condensed co-investment memorandum.
06
Lock the version
Signed version locked with audit trail.
- Recorded
- memorandum.locked event.
- Review
- Partner name on the document.
- Output
- Locked co-invest artifact.
Workflow outputs
Committee-ready artifacts — each with a named reviewer and a defensibility standard.
Where we disagree with the lead
Explicit section with citations on both the lead thesis and the independent read.
- Reviewed by
- Partner
- Defensibility
- Silence on disagreement is refused — unstated points are not assumed agreement.
Side-letter recommendation
Recommended position if the lead's terms are accepted as written.
- Reviewed by
- Partner and counsel
- Defensibility
- Tied to cited term language from admitted documents.
Disagreement with the lead is surfaced explicitly — with citations on both sides.
Co-investment review refuses to re-underwrite from scratch or to assert a disagreement the GP deck does not support. The disagreement register carries dual citations. Partner review is recorded before lock.
- The instrument is a check on the lead — not a parallel primary IDD
- Disagreements cite both the lead memorandum and the GP materials
- Side-letter positions quote underlying term language
- Partner review before the memorandum leaves the chamber
Diligence OS supports investment judgment. It does not make investment decisions, provide investment advice, or guarantee risk detection.
Why not generic AI
Prompt-based tools produce inconsistent outputs with weak provenance. This workflow runs a structured process with an admitted source envelope and a versioned review path.
| Dimension | Generic AI | Diligence OS |
|---|---|---|
| Starting point | Chat-first | Workflow-first |
| Process | User-defined prompts | Versioned process |
| Provenance | Weak provenance | Source-span citations |
| Across documents | One file at a time | The full set reconciled; contradictions surfaced |
| Review | Hard to review | Partner review states |
| Outputs | Inconsistent outputs | Repeatable artifacts |
| Memory | No durable workflow memory | Append-only audit trail |
| Committee use | Difficult to defend | Committee-ready outputs |
| Lead check | Summarize the lead memo | Thesis extract + disagreement register with dual citations |
Starting point
Generic AIChat-first
Diligence OSWorkflow-first
Process
Generic AIUser-defined prompts
Diligence OSVersioned process
Provenance
Generic AIWeak provenance
Diligence OSSource-span citations
Across documents
Generic AIOne file at a time
Diligence OSThe full set reconciled; contradictions surfaced
Review
Generic AIHard to review
Diligence OSPartner review states
Outputs
Generic AIInconsistent outputs
Diligence OSRepeatable artifacts
Memory
Generic AINo durable workflow memory
Diligence OSAppend-only audit trail
Committee use
Generic AIDifficult to defend
Diligence OSCommittee-ready outputs
Lead check
Generic AISummarize the lead memo
Diligence OSThesis extract + disagreement register with dual citations
Business value
Institutional outcomes — not productivity slogans.
- Compress co-invest review cycles without skipping independent verification
- Make disagreement with the lead explicit and cited — not buried in narrative
- Standardize side-letter drafting against admitted terms
- Preserve a defensible record of what the House challenged
- Improve IC throughput on sponsor-led allocations
- Increase partner leverage on condensed, high-stakes reads
Security and control
Closed by construction — each engagement runs inside a dedicated chamber with an append-only audit trail.
- Closed-system workflow — each engagement runs in an isolated chamber
- Engagement-level isolation with row-level tenant scoping
- Source-controlled review — partners read drafts against the audit log
- No training on customer documents — ever, by anyone
- Citation-backed artifacts with hash-verified source spans
- Versioned workflow history preserved on every run
- Audit trail on reads, retrievals, model calls, and locks
- Reviewer traceability — partner review recorded before sign-off
Related workflows
Adjacent diligence processes in the same controlled system.
Request an introduction
Diligence OS is introduced through a controlled evaluation process. No public signup. No self-serve access.