Bring legal findings into the investment decision.
Colabra starts with the work the buy-side team must deliver: a defensible view of the target. Bring contracts, financial schedules, and management material into the same diligence process, then carry the material findings into models and investment memos. Choose it when the deal team needs to own the review from evidence to decision.
Organize around the deal
Keep review requirements, supporting files, findings, and unanswered questions in the context of the acquisition.
Connect the workstreams
Assess the business consequence of a legal issue alongside the financial and commercial evidence it affects.
Deliver a reviewable conclusion
Give the next reviewer the finding, its basis, and what remains unresolved alongside the investment narrative.
Start with who owns the deliverable: the legal team or the investment team.
A firm standardizing research, drafting, and transactional review should evaluate Harvey across that wider workload. A buyer choosing a dedicated deal workspace should compare the complete path from uploaded files to reviewed findings and an investment memo. Legal diligence is an area of overlap, so a category label is insufficient.
Harvey
Harvey combines legal AI assistance, bulk document analysis in Vault, collaborative Spaces, agents, and contract intelligence. Its published scope includes transactional work and due diligence.
Harvey 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 Harvey when…
Your legal or research team needs a platform spanning many matters, document analysis, drafting, and reusable institutional knowledge. Evaluate those broader workloads alongside M&A so a narrow pilot does not undervalue capabilities the team will use every week.
Consider Colabra when…
Your team wants to organize recurring M&A review around deal evidence, requirements, findings, seller requests, and investment deliverables. Evaluate the handoff between legal, financial, and commercial reviewers and the effort needed to keep the final investment narrative aligned.
Using them together
A legal platform can support counsel’s analysis while Colabra organizes the buyer’s broader review. Define where the accepted legal finding lives, which source references travel with it, and who incorporates later legal changes into the investment memo.
Three tasks to bring to the pilot
Use a customer agreement and amendments, a revenue schedule, a management presentation, your diligence checklist, and a prior approved memo. Give both workflows the same scope, access, and expected deliverable: a material-issues register and a short investment memo. Have the people who will own the work perform the review.
- 01
Carry a legal exception into the deal decision
Use an amended customer agreement with an ambiguous consent requirement. Ask each team to identify the controlling text, record the unresolved interpretation, and connect the issue to the buyer’s action list. Assess the handoff to counsel and the investment team separately.
- 02
Reuse knowledge without importing the wrong precedent
Provide an approved checklist and a prior deal memo with a different transaction structure. Ask the reviewer to explain which parts were reused, which were rejected, and why. A plausible precedent is useful only when its assumptions remain visible.
- 03
Compare the work after the first draft
Have a second reviewer challenge a material conclusion and request a different source. Compare the effort required to update the finding, reconcile the narrative, and produce the next reviewable version. Include this revision time in the pilot.
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.