For Private Equity & M&A
Deterministic Data Room Audits.
Identify asset-liability mismatches before capital deployment using the RAVEN Protocol™. Pitch deck, CIM, financial model, cap table — processed as a single logic graph. Contradictions surface as citation-backed findings, not summary snippets.
RAVEN Protocol · U.S. Prov. Patent No. 63/994,876
// The Audit Gap
Single-document review will not catch the contradictions.
The CIM is built to be persuasive. The financial model is built to defend the CIM. The disclosure schedules are built to cover the financial model. The contradictions live between the documents — exactly where manual review fragments.
// Cross-Document Triangulation
What RAVEN Surfaces
CLAIM 01
Duration Mismatch
Long-term, fixed-cost liabilities (e.g., 10–15 year commercial leases) backing short-term, highly volatile revenue. The structural signature behind the WeWork S-1.
CLAIM 02
Revenue Reconciliation
Deck-stated ARR vs. financial-model bookings vs. bank-statement cash collection. When the three diverge, the deal team sees it before the IC.
CLAIM 03
Cap-Table Commingling
Entity-level cap tables that do not reconcile with stated post-money or cross-entity capital flows — the structural signature behind the FTX collapse.
CLAIM 04
Unit-Economic Mirage
SaaS multiples applied to service-tier unit economics. RAVEN flags the structural mispricing before it propagates into the LBO model.
The architectural mechanics of RAVEN's triangulation engine are protected under U.S. Provisional Patent No. 63/994,876 and are not publicly disclosed.
// Buy-Side Diligence Workstreams
The Quality-of-Earnings™ Workstreams, Run Deterministically
This is not a QoE tool. It is judgment infrastructure that executes deterministic quality-of-earnings verification across the data room. The RAVEN Protocol triangulates the workstreams your IC already runs — model vs. financials vs. disclosures — and returns every finding with provenance. Not a probabilistic summary. A citable, reconcilable check.
CLAIM 01
Quality of Earnings (QoE) Reconciliation
Reported earnings reconciled against cash collection and disclosed costs — non-recurring revenue and pull-forward bookings surfaced as citable findings, not a probabilistic read of the CIM. Model vs. financials vs. disclosures.
CLAIM 02
EBITDA Add-Back Validation
Every claimed add-back triangulated across the LBO model, the audited financials, and the disclosure schedules. Lines that do not reconcile to source are flagged deterministically — adjusted EBITDA is only as defensible as the bridge behind it.
CLAIM 03
Net Working Capital (NWC) Peg Integrity
The net-working-capital peg validated against the trailing-twelve-month build and the balance sheet. A mis-set peg is a post-close purchase-price leak; RAVEN surfaces the divergence before the SPA mechanics lock.
CLAIM 04
Customer Concentration & Revenue Quality
Concentration, churn, and revenue-sustainability claims cross-checked across the deck, the model, and the contract schedules. Each contradiction is tied to both source documents — not summarized away.
CLAIM 05
Carve-Out Reconciliation
For carve-outs, RAVEN surfaces where standalone financials fail to reconcile with parent-level disclosures and allocated overhead — with provenance preserved on every line. Complex carve-outs remain a human-adjudicated call on a defensible evidence base.
We do not compete; we consume. Keep the data room, keep your QoE provider, keep the deal team — add the audit. RAVEN sits underneath the workflow you already have and surfaces the contradictions it was never built to catch.
The architectural mechanics of RAVEN's triangulation engine are protected under U.S. Provisional Patent No. 63/994,876 and are not publicly disclosed.
Math does not change based on valuation.
Whether the deal is a $50M growth round or a $2B sponsor-to-sponsor buyout, the contradictions in the data room are the same shape — an inflated EBITDA add-back, a soft net-working-capital peg, a concentration risk buried three documents deep. RAVEN surfaces them deterministically.
Schedule Calibration Call// OBJECTION HANDLING
PE & M&A Due Diligence FAQ
Can askOdin produce a quality-of-earnings analysis, or does it just summarize the CIM?
It deterministically reconciles reported earnings against cash collection and disclosed costs, flagging non-recurring and add-back items as citable findings. It surfaces the quality-of-earnings signals; your deal team and QoE provider adjudicate.
Does it validate EBITDA add-backs and working-capital normalization?
Yes. The RAVEN Protocol triangulates claimed add-backs and the net-working-capital peg across the model, the financials, and the disclosures, flagging any line that does not reconcile to source — deterministic, not estimated.
Can it flag customer concentration and revenue quality across the data room?
Yes. Concentration and revenue-sustainability contradictions surface as cross-document findings tied to both source documents — not a probabilistic summary.
Does this work for a carve-out where financials are entangled with the parent?
The RAVEN Protocol is built for heterogeneous data rooms; it surfaces where carve-out financials fail to reconcile with parent-level disclosures, with provenance preserved. Complex carve-outs remain a human-adjudicated call on a defensible evidence base.
How is this different from a virtual data room’s AI or a RAG tool over the room?
Those retrieve and summarize within a document. askOdin triangulates across documents and preserves contradictions instead of reconciling them away. We do not compete; we consume — keep the room, add the audit.
Is our confidential deal-room data used to train models?
No. Stateless orchestration, ephemeral processing, and strict data sovereignty; deal data is processed in isolated, short-lived compute and never enters any training corpus.
// The Operating Manual
Read the Master Playbook
The forensic standard for detecting structural insolvency and duration mismatches at compile-time — before LOI.
Read the M&A Forensic Standard