For Private Equity & M&A · Scoped Institutional Pilot
Strip the narrative polish off the CIM before you sign the LOI.
CIM analysis software, run as a scoped pilot. askOdin cross-examines the memorandum's claims against the financials supplied with it, and returns every contradiction cited to its source.
Scoped pilot · Uploaded files only · Pre-LOI triage, not confirmatory accounting
RUNE Protocol 63/948,559 · RAVEN Protocol 63/994,876 · Stateless orchestration
Scope
Can AI check a CIM before the LOI?
Yes, as pre-LOI triage: it tests whether the CIM's claims hold against the financials and schedules supplied with it, and every finding cites both documents. It is a first read before you commit to the LOI, not the diligence that follows it.
CIM cross-examination is currently deployed through scoped institutional pilots. Clarity audits whether a CIM's narrative holds against the quantitative schedules supplied with it. It does not replace post-LOI confirmatory accounting, prove cash, reconcile ledgers or set the working-capital peg.
// The Audit Gap
The CIM is a sales document. Diligence has to treat it like one.
The banker wrote the CIM to clear the price. Every chart is true in isolation and the story is airtight on the page. The contradictions do not live inside the memorandum — they live between the CIM and the audited financials, the model, and the disclosures. That is exactly where a manual read, run against a brutal timeline, fragments.
// The Method, As Published
Two deterministic protocols, one auditable verdict.
// Step 01 — Extraction
RUNE compiles the claim, verbatim and citable.
The RUNE Protocol™ reads the document and compiles every material representation — growth, margin, retention, moat — into a structured logic graph. This is read-only, non-generative extraction. The engine catalogs what the seller asserts; it does not yet judge it.
Unlike a probabilistic LLM that paraphrases the deck back to you, RUNE preserves each claim as a discrete, source-anchored node — the unit a deterministic engine can later test.
Where Pitch Decks Break, scored 21 Feb – 19 Mar 2026
Business Model Physics . . fails in 67.0%
Deal Structure . . . . . . . fails in 57.8%
Problem Definition . . . . fails in 17.9%
// Step 02 — Cross-Examination
RAVEN tests each claim against the financials.
The RAVEN Protocol™ triangulates each compiled claim across the audited financials, the financial model, and the disclosure schedules. Where the documents disagree, the contradiction is preserved — not reconciled away — with provenance on both sides of the conflict.
This is cross-document triangulation, not search. RAVEN does not allege intent; it surfaces the mathematical signature of a divergence and leaves adjudication to the deal team and counsel.
The architectural mechanics of RAVEN's triangulation engine are protected under U.S. Provisional Patent No. 63/994,876 and are not publicly disclosed.
src: The We Company, Form S-1 (Aug 14, 2019)
narrative . . . “tech-enabled” platform
financials . . 15-year lease liabilities
revenue . . . . month-to-month memberships
> XDOC-001 — Clarity Score 0/100
// What a Pilot Cross-Examines
The qualitative story, tested against the numbers.
A CIM sells in adjectives. Diligence settles in arithmetic. These are the cross-document checks RAVEN runs against the financials supplied — each contradiction returned with provenance, not summarized away. It does not reconcile ledgers, prove cash or set the working-capital peg; on CIMs it runs as a scoped pilot.
CLAIM 01
Growth Narrative vs. Booked Revenue
The CIM's headline growth story triangulated against the audited financials and the model. When the narrative outruns the bookings, the deal team sees the gap before the LOI — not after the first 100-day plan stalls.
CLAIM 02
Margin Story vs. Cost Disclosures
Claimed margin expansion cross-examined against the disclosed cost base and one-time items. Pull-forward bookings and non-recurring add-backs are preserved as citable contradictions, not smoothed into the thesis.
CLAIM 03
Customer Quality vs. Concentration
Diversification language checked against the revenue disclosures and the model. A ‘broad, sticky customer base’ that mathematically resolves to three logos is flagged at compile-time.
The architectural mechanics of RAVEN's triangulation engine are protected under U.S. Provisional Patent No. 63/994,876 and are not publicly disclosed.
// What a Pilot Returns
A hash-anchored risk matrix, not a faster summary.
In a pilot, the work resolves into a deliverable the IC can defend — ranked structural risk, every finding traceable to its source. Same recorded variables, same Framework version, same result — and the record to prove it.
CLAIM 01
Claim Extraction (RUNE Protocol)
Every material representation in the CIM you bring to the pilot — growth, margin, retention, TAM, competitive moat — is compiled into a structured logic graph. Read-only, non-generative extraction: the engine catalogs what the seller asserts, verbatim and citable.
CLAIM 02
Cross-Examination (RAVEN Protocol)
Each compiled claim is triangulated across the audited financials, the financial model, and the disclosure schedules. Where the documents disagree, the contradiction is preserved, not reconciled away — with provenance on both sides of the conflict.
CLAIM 03
Risk Matrix Output
Findings resolve into a ranked, hash-anchored risk matrix, tiered Critical, Major or Minor by the JUDGE Protocol, each tied to the exact source cell or paragraph. An audit completes in under three minutes, so the deal team reads structural risk the same day, not after a week of manual tie-out.
CLAIM 04
Defensible Audit Log™
The full verdict is written to a sealed, click-to-source record bound to the SHA-256 fingerprint of the files read. The same recorded variables under the same Framework version return the same result, so the IC, counsel or the LP base checks a finding from its record months after close — not by hoping a fresh run matches.
We do not compete; we consume. Keep your virtual data room, keep your QoE provider, keep the deal team — add the audit. askOdin sits underneath the workflow you already run and surfaces the contradictions a single-document read was never built to catch.
// OBJECTION HANDLING
CIM & M&A Diligence FAQ
CIM analysis
What is CIM analysis software?
CIM analysis software reads a Confidential Information Memorandum and tests its claims rather than summarizing them. A summarizer compresses a 90-page CIM into two pages you still have to trust. Analysis checks whether the adjusted EBITDA in the CIM matches the model, whether the growth story survives the cohort data, and whether the addressable market is asserted or evidenced.
Can AI analyze a Confidential Information Memorandum?
Yes, and the useful part is not the reading. A CIM is a sell-side document written to be persuasive, so the value is in cross-checking it: does the same revenue figure appear in the CIM, the model and the management presentation, and where it does not, which one is the outlier. That is a mechanical comparison at volume, and it is where surprises hide. On CIMs, askOdin runs this today as a scoped institutional pilot.
Can it check the CIM against the investment memo and the financial model?
That is the intended use. Each claim in the CIM is traced to the document that supports it — the model, the disclosures, the data room — and disagreements are reported rather than reconciled into a cleaner story. Your investment memo then cites findings with a source attached instead of numbers someone lifted on a deadline. On CIMs, askOdin runs this today as a scoped institutional pilot.
What it analyses
Can askOdin produce a quality-of-earnings analysis, or does it just summarize the CIM?
Neither. It does not produce a QoE, and it does not summarize. It cross-examines the claims in one document against the numbers in the others and returns each contradiction as a citable finding, tied to both sources. Your deal team and your QoE provider adjudicate.
Does it validate EBITDA add-backs and working-capital normalization?
Not as an accounting reconciliation. It does not test add-backs against the general ledger or rebuild the working-capital peg; that is the QoE provider's work. What it tests is whether the CIM's narrative survives the financial statements supplied with it. The engine's published record is on pitch decks and public filings (see the WeWork S-1 audit); on CIMs it runs as a scoped pilot on your own documents.
Can it flag customer concentration and revenue quality across the data room?
Where the contradiction sits between documents you supply, yes: a concentration or revenue-durability claim stated one way in the CIM and contradicted by the model is the kind of finding the engine is built to hold, tied to both sources. It does not audit contracts or cash receipts.
Fit and confidentiality
Does this work for a carve-out where financials are entangled with the parent?
Only as far as the documents supplied allow. Where the carve-out financials and the parent-level disclosures contradict each other, that surfaces as a finding with both sources cited. Untangling the carve-out itself remains the accountants' work and the deal team's call.
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. Extraction runs against an external model API under a paid-tier agreement that prohibits training use, and the deterministic engine does the analysis. Processing runs under Stateless API Orchestration and Strict Data Sovereignty; raw documents are held no longer than 30 days under a documented retention ceiling and never enter any training corpus. What persists beyond that is the derived record (the verdict and the analysis), and deletion requests reach it too. The ceiling is documented policy; until its automated enforcement ships, deletion is executed on request. The detail, control by control, is on the security page.
Math does not change based on valuation.
Whether it is a bolt-on add-on or a platform buyout, the gaps between the CIM and the financials are the same shape — an outrun growth claim, a soft margin story, a concentration risk buried three documents deep. A scoped pilot surfaces them deterministically, before the LOI.