WaVe-X
Partner
"10x better than the analyst."
Increased review capacity with consistent, repeatable report format across weekly deal flow.
1,000+ sources 4–6 hour delivery 70+ expert perspectives 100% source-linked
Run due diligence before you fall in love with the deal.
Your pitch deck. Our evidence pipeline.
Upload a deck. Receive structured, source-backed verification across your diligence framework - in hours, not weeks. When the story doesn't match the public record, you see both versions with source links.
We automate the evidence pipeline, not the judgment.
Your data stays yours. Isolated processing per deal · No model training on uploaded decks · Encrypted at rest and in transit · Full deletion on request.
Expedite Capital · Unfold VC · WaVe-X (Walter Group CVC) · Kogito Ventures
1
Upload your pitch deck
Submit your pitch deck or investment memo. Processing begins immediately.
2
Define your scope
Full DD, financials only, team & founders, market & competition.
3
Receive your IC-ready report
Typically 4-6 hours (full DD), under 2 hours (focused scope).
Early-stage companies are where this matters most.
Pre-revenue founders overstate traction because there's less external data to contradict them. But less data doesn't mean no data.
Founder Integrity
Registry checks, officer listings, cap table verification against corporate records
Traction Reality
Revenue and growth claims cross-referenced against regulatory filings and public data
Market Claims
Competitive positioning verified against actual market data and comparable companies
Disclosure Gaps
Risks the founders didn't mention, surfaced from public sources and adversarial patterns
What We Couldn't Verify
Explicit flags for claims with no supporting evidence, so your IC sees confirmed, conflicting, and unverifiable
Stealth companies with minimal public footprint return faster — the report flags what was found, what wasn't, and where coverage gaps exist. You never get silence — you get a map of what's knowable.
Here's what a verification report surfaces.
Real findings from a real verification. Conflicts, adversarial review, risk playbooks, and IC-ready questions — all source-linked.
TEAM & ORGANISATION
High Confidence3
Northstar's CTO joined from a staff engineer role at a mid-stage SaaS company and has not previously managed a team larger than four. The current engineering org is twelve people across three squads with plans to double by Q3. LinkedIn and reference calls confirm strong individual contribution but no evidence of scaled hiring, architecture review ownership, or incident-management leadership.
MARKET & COMPETITION
High Confidence3
FinLedger, the closest competitor, closed a $40M Series B in November 2025 and announced SMB lending vertical expansion in their press release — directly overlapping with Northstar's core market. FinLedger has 3x the engineering team and existing bank partnerships that took 18 months to build.
PRODUCT & TECHNOLOGY
CONFLICTING INFORMATION
RISK ASSESSMENT
QUESTIONS FOR FOUNDERS
Medium Confidence3
Northstar reports strong logo retention, but product analytics show a median of roughly two monthly active users per customer organization. That is consistent with bookkeeping-only adoption in micro-SMBs and raises a founder question: is usage intentionally narrow, or is multi-seat expansion failing in the accounts that underpin the Series A story?
Questions for founders — with answer benchmarks.
The report generates IC-ready questions linked to specific findings. Each question includes three response benchmarks so you know whether the answer you're getting is exemplary, adequate, or a red flag — before the meeting ends.
Question for Founders
Linked to: User Engagement Risk, Commercial Metric Density
"Your data shows ~2 active users per organization. Is this because your core segment is micro-companies, or are you seeing shallow adoption in larger accounts?"
Exemplary
"It's a mix — we track it closely. ~60% of our organizations have <5 employees, where that ratio is normal. For the other 40%, we have an activation playbook that achieves 85% adoption. We're now productizing it with an ROI dashboard to scale."
Data-driven segmentation. Concrete improvement plan.
Adequate
"Many of our clients are very small businesses. We know we need to improve employee onboarding and we're working on UX changes."
Awareness without proactive strategy.
Red Flag
"We believe our user engagement is strong."
Cannot explain the metric or segment the base.
10 questions per report. Each linked to a specific finding. Each with benchmarks calibrated to the company's stage, market, and risk profile.
Or upload a pitch deck to start your verification
Can't I just paste a deck into Claude?
You can prompt Claude to analyze a pitch deck. Here's what it can't do:
1
Retrieve and cross-check sources
Claude works with what you paste in. We pull actual filings from PACER, SEC EDGAR, state registries, and USPTO, score each by authority, recency, and independence, and show you all versions with confidence ratings when sources contradict the deck.
2
Process at scale
A single verification burns ~100 million tokens across 1,000+ sources, 13 pipeline stages, and 70+ analysis agents simultaneously. Claude's context window is ~200K tokens, a 500x gap.
3
Produce consistent results
Different prompts, different output. We run the same pipeline every time, same checks, same adversarial review, same methodology. Then you drill into any finding and go deeper from inside the platform.
Your criteria define what to verify, what counts as a risk, which sources matter, when to flag. Same engine, different outputs. The IP is yours.
Investment Committee-ready documents. Not a summary — a cited evidence package.
Every verification produces a structured, citation-backed report designed for your IC workflow. Share with co-investors, export to your firm's format, or use directly in partner meetings.
We don't generate investment recommendations. We don't score companies. We surface evidence, flag conflicts, and structure the output — you make the call.
Report
Interactive Evidence Package
Browse findings by domain, expand any insight, drill into source evidence. Every claim linked to its origin document.
Report sections
Executive Brief Conflicting Information Risk Playbooks Opportunities Questions for Founders Full Deep Dive Sources Index Conclusion
Chat
Chat with Findings
Ask questions about any finding. Source-backed answers grounded in the evidence.
Evidence
Source-Linked
Every claim cited. Quotes, URLs, and confidence scores. One-click verification.
Audio
Audio Briefing
Listen on your commute
Export
PDF · JSON · CSV
Share with co-investors
IC Gating Checklist — ACME Inc Series A
Further investment consideration is contingent on:
- 1 Audited financials for FY2024-2025 to validate revenue, profitability, and capital efficiency claims
- 2 Formal legal opinion confirming regulatory exemption status for planned embedded finance workflows
- 3 Live demonstration of tested disaster recovery plan with documented RTO/RPO targets
- 4 Resolution of dual-entity corporate structure for primary OEM revenue contract
Not a vague "needs more diligence." A specific, enumerated list of what to verify and why — ready to hand to your legal team or share with co-investors.
We don't replace your team. We automate the 48 hours of evidence gathering so your analysts focus on judgment.
Source coverage
Manual Process
Manual sampling — analyst checks a handful of databases per deal
With Research.Tech
Full complexity — every company checked against 1,000+ sources automatically
Time per company
Manual Process
8–60+ hours of analyst evidence gathering
With Research.Tech
4-6 hours (automated evidence collection) + analyst review
Pipeline coverage
Manual Process
Deep dives on 25-30 companies/year; the rest reviewed on instinct
With Research.Tech
Structured verification across your full pipeline
Source traceability
Manual Process
Analyst notes and institutional memory
With Research.Tech
Every finding linked to its origin document
IC readiness
Manual Process
Analyst rewrites notes into IC memo
With Research.Tech
Gating checklist: specific items to verify before proceeding
Institutional memory
Manual Process
Notes scattered across tools
With Research.Tech
Source library — all sources stored, organized, and reusable across re-assessments
Every finding traces to a source. Every source is scored.
Your Input
Pitch Deck
Claims & projections
Scope
Full DD or focused
Framework
Your diligence criteria
Priorities
What matters most
Input
Verification Engine — 5 phases · 13 stages · 3 review cycles
Extraction
Research
Analysis
Adversarial Review
Assembly
0+
Agents
Multi-model cross-check
0+
Sources
100M+
Tokens per run
Output
IC-Ready Evidence Package
Conflicts
Both sides, source-linked
Risk Playbooks
Assessment + mitigation
Gating Checklist
Items to verify pre-term sheet
Full Deep Dive
10 categories, all cited
Covers entities across all 50 US states + 8 international registries. Coverage depth varies by jurisdiction — gaps are explicitly flagged in the report.
Trace how every finding was built. Every source, every step.
Follow any claim back to its origin: from the research task, through every search and fetched page, down to exact text snippets and saved sources. Click any node to trace the full chain.
Loading graph data…
Your pipeline is growing. Your diligence capacity is not.
See the output first.
Browse a completed verification on a real (anonymized) company — Executive Brief, Conflict Log, Source Chains, and linked sources.
Test it on your own deal.
Create a free account (takes 30 seconds), upload a deck where you already know the answer. See if we find what your team found — and what they missed.
Create an account to track your reports.