Turn sell-side disclosure into a buy-side view.
The seller supplies documents. Your team still has to decide what they mean for the investment. Colabra is built around that buyer responsibility: reviewing evidence, identifying material findings, resolving gaps, and producing the models and memos the decision requires. Choose it when your next bottleneck is the review itself.
Start with your review requirements
Organize the analysis around the questions the buyer needs answered, using the deal files as supporting evidence.
Keep open questions connected
Carry missing support into a focused request and retain the context of the finding that raised it.
Work toward the investment memo
Bring the material conclusions into a work product your team can inspect, challenge, and refine.
Controlled disclosure and a repeatable buyer review
A VDR can remain the seller’s distribution system while the buyer chooses a separate place for its analysis. The purchase question is whether the room and existing tools already support your review well enough, and whether another workspace materially improves the resulting decisions.
FORDATA
FORDATA offers a virtual data room with document indexing, granular access, Q&A, and activity reporting. It also describes redaction, translation, and diligence-related automations.
FORDATA product documentationReviewed 9 September 2026
Colabra
Colabra is an AI workspace for M&A due diligence, organized around deal files, review requirements, findings, requests, and reports. Its focus is helping buy-side teams turn sell-side material into source-linked findings, financial models, and investment memos.
Explore the Colabra workflow →Where each approach fits
Consider FORDATA when…
You primarily need controlled disclosure, participant access, seller-facing questions, and transaction administration. Evaluate the room’s available AI and review capabilities in the exact plan being proposed; they may already cover a meaningful share of the analytical workload.
Consider Colabra when…
You need a place for the buyer’s cross-document analysis, private interpretations, unresolved questions, and investment work products. Evaluate whether it improves the review sufficiently to justify working alongside the seller’s existing room.
Using them together
Keep authorized disclosure and seller communication in the agreed transaction system. Use a buyer workspace only for permitted material and define the update process explicitly: source versions, approved transfers, private findings, and the final archive all need an owner.
Three tasks to bring to the pilot
Use a small room with two bidder groups, an external adviser, a revised financial schedule, a customer agreement, and an unanswered seller question. Give both workflows the same scope, access, and expected deliverable: a buyer findings register, approved seller questions, and a reviewed memo. Have the people who will own the work perform the review.
- 01
Test the room in the roles you actually use
Use a folder import and a revised document set to evaluate setup effort and numbering stability. Ask a reviewer to find the source used in an earlier conclusion after the update.
- 02
Introduce a difficult evidence change
Send a question requiring several documents and test the internal approval and external response process. Verify the receiving participant sees only the authorized material.
- 03
Compare the complete operating cost
If cross-border access is central, test translated material against the original with an appropriate reviewer and include the actual contractual hosting requirements in procurement.
Judge the reviewed result
Agree the acceptance criteria before the demonstration. Record the evidence behind each assessment so the decision can be revisited after the pilot.
| Criterion | Question to answer | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence quality | Can a reviewer locate the controlling source and explain how it supports the exact conclusion? | Record unsupported statements, incorrect references, and ambiguity that the output hides. A source link is useful only if the source substantiates the claim. |
| Coverage and exceptions | Can the team tell what was reviewed, what failed to process, and what is still missing? | Seed a missing attachment and an unreadable file. The reviewer should distinguish incomplete evidence from a clean result and know what to request next. |
| Revision and handoff | Can another person challenge the finding and update the work after new evidence arrives? | Repeat one material change. Count the places that need manual updates and check whether the new memo still agrees with the supporting analysis. |
| Operating effort | How much setup, specialist review, administration, and coordination does the completed task require? | Measure total reviewer time through an accepted deliverable. Include correction and handoff time, not only time to the first generated draft. |
Use a simple result for each criterion: demonstrated, requires configuration, or unresolved. Do not turn an unanswered question into a feature claim. Ask for a follow-up demonstration when a material requirement remains unresolved.
Inside the work product
Explore a
diligence review
Browse a sample investment committee memo, the findings behind it, and the requests that move the review forward.
Investment team · Working review
Investment committee memo
Executive view
Resolve the earnings adjustment and currency difference before finalizing the investment case. Keep customer consent visible in the closing discussion.
Matters for attention
Earnings adjustment
The adjustment combines remediation with support. Separate ongoing costs before accepting the full add-back.
Management earnings bridge · note 4Currency reconciliation
The stated rate implies $1,296,000, leaving a $24,000 difference to explain.
Revenue schedule · European subsidiaryCustomer consent
Confirm whether the proposed transaction triggers consent before relying on the contract at close.
Acme customer agreement · §12.3Evidence reviewed
- Management earnings bridge
- Subsidiary revenue schedules
- Key customer agreements
Source-linked findings
Risk register
Earnings adjustment
The adjustment combines remediation with support. Separate ongoing costs before accepting the full add-back.
Inspect the source
$230,000 cybersecurity remediation and support included in adjusted EBITDA.Management earnings bridge · note 4
Currency reconciliation
The stated rate implies $1,296,000, leaving a $24,000 difference to explain.
Inspect the source
EUR revenue: €1,200,000. Translation rate: 1.08 USD/EUR. Consolidated amount: $1,320,000.Revenue schedule · European subsidiary
Customer consent
Confirm whether the proposed transaction triggers consent before relying on the contract at close.
Inspect the source
Assignment, including by change of control, requires prior written consent.Acme customer agreement · §12.3
Outstanding evidence
Seller request list
Earnings adjustment
Provide invoices and the statement of work, separating one-time remediation from recurring support.
Currency reconciliation
Provide the translation-rate policy and reconciliation for the $24,000 difference.
Customer consent
Provide written consent or confirm the status of the customer discussion.
When the response arrives
Review the supporting document against the original question, then update the finding and the review conclusion.
Compare the cost of the complete workflow
Start with licenses and services already in place. Add implementation, permitted usage, storage, external reviewers, specialist review, support, and the internal time needed to maintain the process. Request a written quote for your actual configuration; a generic seat price will not describe every deployment.
Before the pilot
Confirm the product edition, available connections, document limits, access roles, and who can configure the workflow. Agree which sample material is authorized for the evaluation and which deliverables the reviewers must produce.
Before adoption
Review the proposed data handling, retention, access, and contractual arrangements. Test export and handoff with the people who will own the deal record after close. Include source references and unresolved questions in that final package.
Compare total effort through the first accepted result and one meaningful revision. If your existing workflow performs well, keeping it is a valid outcome. If another approach wins, identify the specific task it improves and the changes needed to make that improvement repeatable.