When an investment fails,
nobody remembers how persuasive the memo was.

No — it strengthens it. Duty of care requires an explainable, validated process. The Defensible Audit Log gives every verdict a reconstructible, click-to-source evidence trail — the opposite of an unexplained black box.

No. The compiler reads underlying physics, not founder polish — it overrode Airbnb’s weak 2009 framing and surfaced the category-creation structure. It penalizes physics violations, not unconventional narratives.

That is the core use case. Cross-document triangulation surfaces the contradiction — the cap table that mathematically contradicts the projection, the hardware claim the physics forbids — at compile time, before the term sheet. See the Terminal Audits.

It is not a probabilistic prediction to be 'accurate'; it is a deterministic compiler check that is reproducible across analysts and across years. The same data room returns the same verdict — calibration, not accuracy.

Yes — that is the reason it exists. Each finding traces to the document and line that produced it, and the engine is deterministic, so re-running the same inputs on the same engine version returns the same result. Two years later, when someone asks how the committee got comfortable with an assumption, the record answers rather than a recollection.

Then you have located the disagreement, which is the useful outcome. The score is not a vote and does not overrule anyone. Because every input is traced, a partner who disputes it can go to the specific claim and the specific document behind it and argue with that. Disagreeing with a number is unproductive; disagreeing with a sourced finding is diligence.

Those retrieve, aggregate, and summarize faster. askOdin sits above them and compiles judgment deterministically: retrieval retrieves, analytics aggregates, workflow automates — we compile judgment. We do not compete; we consume.

A summary compresses what the documents say. Verification tests whether what they say holds together. A summariser reading a deck claiming 40% margins and a model showing 24% will usually produce fluent prose containing both numbers. Verification treats the gap between them as the output. One saves reading time; the other changes the decision.

No. It replaces the part of their week spent checking whether numbers reconcile across documents — mechanical work that is easy to do badly at volume and offers no judgment premium. What it does not do is decide. Which risks are acceptable, which founder is worth backing, what the deal is worth: those stay with the people you hired to make them.

Underneath them. Those systems store documents, track relationships, and supply comparables — none of them evaluate whether the reasoning in a deal holds. We do not compete with that stack; we consume it. The data room stays where it is, the CRM keeps the pipeline, and the verification layer runs across whatever they contain.

A forensic pass runs in minutes. Run the interactive Sample Audit in the sandbox, or compile a single live deal in a scoped pilot before committing.

Yes, and the gaps become part of the output. Missing documents are reported as unverifiable rather than silently skipped, so an absent cohort file or a missing bank statement is visible to the committee instead of disappearing into a confident-sounding summary. In early diligence, knowing what you could not check is often more valuable than what you could.

A memo the committee can read without you in the room. Every material claim carries the document and page it came from, contradictions between sources are stated rather than reconciled away, and the reasoning behind the score is visible. The point is that a partner who was not in the meeting can follow how the conclusion was reached, and check it.

Check each claim against a source that was not written to persuade you. A revenue figure in a deck should reconcile to the model; a growth rate should survive being recalculated from the underlying numbers; a number appearing in three documents should appear identically in all three. Where they disagree, the disagreement is the finding — regardless of which document turns out to be right.