Bring the deal review into one coherent record.
Colabra gives the buy-side team a dedicated workflow for evidence, findings, requests, and reports. Choose it when the work is becoming difficult to follow across document sets, conversations, and drafts, and your team needs a shared basis for reaching the investment decision.
Keep context together
Connect the issue, supporting evidence, and outstanding question.
Organize around the review
Maintain the diligence requirements your team needs to satisfy.
Deliver the decision record
Carry the supported findings into a reviewable investment memo.
A small, disciplined process can be enough until coordination becomes the bottleneck.
This approach has the advantage of familiarity and low setup effort. Its suitability depends on the number of reviewers, the pace of document change, and how reliably the team maintains one accepted issue record. Evaluate those operating conditions before adding another system.
VDR + email
A VDR plus email separates controlled document distribution from the conversations used to analyze it. Many deal teams add spreadsheets, shared documents, and adviser reports to keep the review moving.
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 VDR + email when…
The deal is small, the participants are experienced, and the team can reliably maintain a single issue list with clear ownership. Familiar tools may be sufficient when changes and handoffs remain manageable.
Consider Colabra when…
Coordination is consuming time or important context is getting lost across files, emails, and drafts. Evaluate whether a dedicated review record improves completeness and handoff without creating another place the team has to update manually.
Using them together
Continue using the seller’s agreed communication channel, but designate one internal record for accepted findings and open questions. Decide which messages must be captured and who reconciles the response with the original issue.
Three tasks to bring to the pilot
Use a representative email thread, replaced attachment, room document, issue spreadsheet, and final memo draft. Give both workflows the same scope, access, and expected deliverable: one coherent decision record that another reviewer can understand. Have the people who will own the work perform the review.
- 01
Find the current answer
Choose a question with several email replies and a replaced attachment. Ask two reviewers independently to identify the current answer and the source version supporting it. Compare their results before discussing process changes.
- 02
Locate the unresolved issue
Give the deal lead a week of correspondence and ask for open material questions with owners and deadlines. Count missing or duplicated items and the time spent assembling the list.
- 03
Archive a complete decision
Pick a final memo statement and assemble its evidence, discussion, and disposition from the room and inbox. Test whether a new teammate can understand the record after temporary deal access ends.
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.