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.

It is built not to, and we cannot yet prove the rate. The engine scores structure, not polish: on Airbnb’s 2009 seed deck the category-creation signal overrode the weak framing, and the deck scored 73, in the INVESTIGATE band — named questions to close, not a pass. A score floors to 0 only on a terminal contradiction — a physics violation, a cross-document contradiction, insolvency or governance failure — never for an unconventional narrative. What does not exist yet is an outcome record. No score has been graded; the Provenance Ledger grades Cohort 2026 in public in June 2027, and it will count kill shots applied to businesses that went on to work as false positives.

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.

There is no accuracy figure yet, and we will not invent one. The score measures whether the reasoning holds on the documents supplied, not the probability that the company succeeds. What we can state is reproducibility: the same recorded variables return the same score under the same Framework version, whichever analyst ran it, and a past result is checked from its record rather than by re-running it. Whether high scores aged better than low ones is a question for outcomes; the Provenance Ledger answers it in public, starting June 2027.

Yes — that is the reason it exists. Each finding traces to the document and the page or cell that produced it, and the record carries the Framework version and the SHA-256 fingerprint of the files that were read. The scoring is deterministic: the same recorded variables return the same score under the same version. Two years later, when someone asks how the committee got comfortable with an assumption, you read the record; you do not rely on a re-run matching, or on 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 on the files you upload from them. There is no integration to install.

A single audit completes in under three 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.