Boardroom
War Room for M&A Due Diligence
Start new thread

Boardroom - War Room for M&A Due Diligence

by•
Most AI deck tools are one model with one opinion. Boardroom convenes a full investment committee: Researcher, Analyst, and a Red Team that argues the other side, then a Synthesizer—every claim fact-checked by a Verifier that grounds it against your deck and scores its integrity. No hallucinated insights, just a stage-aware IC memo you can trust in minutes. Founder mode sharpens your raise; investor mode runs the diligence.

Add a comment

Replies

Best
Maker
📌
Hey Product Hunt 👋 I'm George, the founder of Boardroom. This started from watching how high-stakes calls actually get made — a founder's raise, an investor's check, an M&A decision — all riding on a deck that's *engineered* to sound convincing. I kept seeing sharp people get burned by risks hiding in plain sight, and the AI "deck reviewers" out there made it worse: one confident model that mostly agrees with whatever you feed it, and every so often just invents a number. So the first version I built was exactly that — a single AI that summarized a deck. It was useless. It flattered the pitch and hallucinated facts. That failure is what shaped everything after it. Boardroom now works like a real investment committee. A **Researcher** gathers context, an **Analyst** builds the case, a **Red Team** actively argues the other side, and a **Synthesizer** reconciles them into a verdict. The part I'm proudest of is the **Verifier**: it fact-checks every claim against your actual source material and gives it an integrity score — so you can see what's grounded and what isn't. Founder mode pressure-tests your raise before investors do; investor mode runs the diligence. **For the launch:** the first 100 of you can use code **BOARDROOM100** for a free full deal review. If it earns it, I'd love a quick rating on your way out — it genuinely means a lot this early. I'll be here all day. Tell me where it's wrong, what's missing, and what you'd want next. 🙏

Ran a draft through the investor mode and the Red Team actually pushed back on a metric I had handwaved, which forced me to fix it before sending. The Verifier catching a number that didn't match my appendix was a nice safety net.

How does the Verifier actually ground claims against my deck in practice, and what happens if it finds something it cant verify with the source material provided?

How does the Red Team actually get triggered, and can I swap in my own skeptical voice or past investor questions so it preps me for people I know are going to push back hard?

Ran a real pitch through it and the red team finding holes in my own assumptions was genuinely uncomfortable in a useful way, way more pointed than just asking ChatGPT for counterpoints. Took a few minutes to trust the verifier scores but once I did, the memo felt like something I could actually send to a partner.

The red team pushing back on my assumptions was genuinely uncomfortable in a good way. Wish every pitch deck got stress tested like this before going out.

The Red Team arguing the other side before the Synthesizer even weighs in is such a sharp move, feels like the kind of design choice that actually changes how founders think through a raise.