You audit the fund's balance sheet.
Why guess on their judgment?

IDD (investment due diligence) evaluates a manager’s strategy, investment decisions and track record. ODD (operational due diligence) evaluates how the firm runs: operations, internal controls, back office and compliance. askOdin replaces neither. In IDD it tests the reasoning behind a manager’s deals under the same rules for every manager; in ODD it adds a record of how each decision was reached, traced to its source. Your ODD provider and the ILPA Due Diligence Questionnaire stay where they are.

Both, as an evidence layer beneath them. For IDD, Clarity audits the memos and decks behind a manager’s representative deals and places each score against a 110,000+ benchmark corpus built on public deal data. For ODD, the Defensible Audit Log gives a reconstructible record of how each decision was reached. It is not a replacement for either.

It extends it. The DDQ captures what a GP says; a Clarity audit adds a deterministic, checkable measure of how the GP’s reasoning held up against its own documents. For vendor-neutral questions you can drop into a DDQ today, see the seven questions LPs should ask GPs about AI diligence.

Both models work. Run a Clarity audit on a prospective manager’s representative deals during selection, or embed a Clarity Score minimum in side-letter terms so the GP reports it each quarter.

Yes — the NORN Protocol (U.S. Provisional Patent 64/011,252) detects temporal semantic drift: divergence between a manager’s stated thesis and their actual decisions across chronologically sequential funds.

A human ODD report is a point-in-time snapshot. askOdin produces a deterministic score and a sealed, mathematically traceable record of each audit, comparable across your manager roster. It sits beside your ODD provider, not in place of it.

Every finding traces to the page or cell it came from, and the same recorded variables return the same score under the same version, so the basis for an allocation can be checked later from its record. Two limits to state to a board: the SHA-256 fingerprint shows a document was not swapped, not that a record was never touched; and there is no graded outcome record yet (the first ledger report is due in June 2027). For data handling, see Security; for who is behind the company, see About.

Yes, within the deal’s own documents. Send the deck, the memo and the model the GP shared, and Clarity tests whether the claims carrying the deal hold up against the model and against each other, with every finding traced to its page or cell. It does not verify facts outside the documents, and it is not a quality-of-earnings or accounting review. It is a check you can run before you commit, without a deal team of your own.

Discretion here means the data handling set out on Security. Documents are never used to train models. Raw documents are held no longer than 30 days under a documented retention ceiling; automated enforcement of that ceiling is in progress, and until it ships deletion is executed on request. What persists is derived (the verdict, the judgment analysis and structural data), and that record can include identifying details, so erasure requests reach it. askOdin also runs shared: isolation of the processing cache is still being hardened, and single-tenant deployment and a configurable processing region are planned, not shipped. If your terms with the GP require dedicated processing, say so before you send anything. Check that your confidentiality terms with the GP allow you to share the materials with a processor.

Write to us through the contact form with the deal or manager you are looking at. A scoped start on a single deal is enough to see the output before you commit to anything.