Tommy Dobczyk shows how AI due-diligence tools catch critical errors in investment materials. A one-page summary claimed a $150 million raise while financial decks showed a much smaller need, the kind of mismatch that can kill a $50 million deal. He advises founders to validate every claim across all documents.
Chapters
Are you in the deal room? Inconsistent terms across documents. So what it's doing is just— it's going to point out inconsistencies for one reason. When you go to a due— when you go to due diligence and you go to, say, for example, FactRight. FactRight is a third-party due diligence company, largest in the country. They literally— like, there's not a registered investment advisor in this country that isn't utilizing a FactRight report to put people's money into. Right. Right there. It's just pointing out a simple inconsistency. That would trip up a $50 million check. So the one-pager says it's $150 million target raise, while the operating financial decks show a much smaller visible near-term source and uses footprint. Okay, so the suggestion is made that you make everything cohesive, make everything sound the same. So again, it's just suggesting the things you'll need to validate that claim.