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. 🙏
💎 Pixel perfection

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.

Maker

 Thanks for trying it out Murat, hope it met all your expectations. Wishing you all the best in your endeavors.

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?

Maker

 Hi Gulcan, hope this answers your question. How the Verifier grounds claims:

Every claim in the memo (market size numbers, competitive claims, etc.) gets pulled out as an atomic, checkable statement. Each one is checked against the actual source material you uploaded — your deck text, any linked docs, and research findings — using a mix of fuzzy text matching plus an LLM "judge" pass that reads the claim next to your source content and decides: does the source fully support this, partially support it, or not support it at all? Numbers are held to a strict bar — if the deck says $50M TAM and the memo says $80M, that's a hard fail, not a rounding error.

Claims that come from external context (competitor research, market commentary) get checked against general real-world knowledge instead, since there's no source doc to match against.

What happens when something can't be verified:

Nothing gets silently dropped, and nothing slips through unflagged either. Every claim ends up with a status — verified, plausible, flagged, or (if it looks fabricated) hallucination — and those roll up into an overall integrity score. If anything comes back flagged or the score dips, the memo automatically gets revised before you see it: unsupported claims get struck or downgraded to weaker, source-backed language, and confidence levels get adjusted accordingly. You also get a "Trust Layer" section at the bottom of every memo showing the integrity score and a list of exactly which claims didn't verify — so it's not a black box, you can see what the AI wasn't sure about and check it yourself.

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?

Maker

 Good question — right now the Red Team always runs, and it already calibrates its aggressiveness based on funding stage and investor type you set before the analysis (angel vs. institutional VC vs. corporate VC each get a different bar). But a free-text field where you paste in your own skeptical voice or specific questions you know are coming — that's not built yet. Genuinely a great idea though, and it slots in cleanly next to the existing deal-context inputs. Adding it to the list — appreciate you pushing on this.

Maker

 Quick update, new feature implemented, you can now add questions to it like you asked in your earlier comment. Happy prepping Yeliz

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.

Maker

 Thanks Yagmur, glad you found it useful

Maker

To be honest I was not expecting so many comments and also did not get any notifications. I'll answer every comment shortly. I appreciate all your comments.