CIM, QoE, financial model and management presentation review without leaking MNPI to a US-based AI vendor.
Every CIM, financial model, QoE report and management presentation contains Material Non-Public Information. Sending it to ChatGPT or Claude is a securities-law risk and a strategic leak. This agent reads it inside an Intel TDX hardware enclave, cross-references documents for inconsistencies, scrutinizes EBITDA add-backs, scores deal risk across 8 dimensions and generates the IC summary. Built for deal teams running confirmatory DD.
Built for: PE/VC associates and partners, corporate development teams, M&A bankers, investment committees
DD data rooms contain 500-5,000 documents. Analyst teams burn 200-400 hours per deal on document review. A single missed red flag — recurring "one-time" add-backs, undisclosed related-party fees, customer concentration in expiring contracts — can destroy $100M+ post-acquisition. Yet most AI tools process MNPI on shared US infrastructure.
Compress 200-400 hours of analyst document review into a structured cross-document risk register and IC-ready summary, with MNPI sealed in hardware.
What the Due Diligence Analyst does on every document, sealed inside an Intel TDX hardware enclave.
The single most important QoE work. Calculates add-back ratio explicitly, flags add-backs >30% (RED) or >50% (BLACK), surfaces "one-time" charges that recur across periods, and notes which add-backs a PE buyer typically refuses to credit.
Upload CIM + financials + management presentation. The agent flags where revenue figures, employee counts, customer counts or growth claims disagree across documents — the highest-value finding in any DD process.
Financial, legal/regulatory, operational, market/commercial, technology/IP, people/culture, regulatory/antitrust, integration — each scored 1-5 with specific findings and mitigation options (price adjustment, escrow, earnout, R&W, indemnification).
Decomposes revenue into recurring / repeating / re-occurring / one-time, surfaces customer concentration, NRR/NDR trend lines and revenue-mix shifts that degrade quality even when total revenue grows.
Compares the asking multiple against precedent transactions and public comps. Flags whether the price reflects the identified risks or assumes a clean balance sheet that does not exist.
One-page Investment Committee output: recommendation (PROCEED / PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS / PAUSE / PASS), three reasons in, three reasons out, key protections required, and a 100-day integration risk read.
Four steps from upload to export. Your document is decrypted only inside the CPU-encrypted enclave.
CIM, teaser, management presentation, QoE report, financial model, legal DD memo. PDFs and XLSX go through TLS in transit and are decrypted only inside the TDX enclave.
The model runs inside an Intel TDX hardware enclave. Memory is CPU-encrypted. The cloud operator cannot read prompts or documents, so MNPI never leaves the boundary required by the NDA.
Deal summary, EBITDA bridge, revenue quality matrix, 8-dimension risk scorecard, cross-document inconsistency table, valuation sanity check, 10-15 DD questions for management.
Markdown for the IC memo, JSON via API for deal CRMs (Affinity, DealCloud), tables exportable to Excel for the deal model.
Every output cites the specific article, section or control. The Intel TDX hardware boundary handles the data-protection side; the agent handles the analytical side.
Real prompts from investment / m&a teams.
Analyze this CIM — what's the investment thesis and what are the red flags?
Scrutinize the EBITDA add-backs in this QoE report. Which ones are legitimate?
Score this deal across all 8 risk dimensions. What should the IC know?
Cross-reference the CIM revenue claims against these actual financial statements.
Prompt: Scrutinize the EBITDA add-backs in this QoE.
Output: Adjusted EBITDA $14.2M vs reported EBITDA $8.6M. Add-backs = $5.6M (39% of adjusted EBITDA — RED). Concerns: (1) "One-time" CEO bonus add-back has appeared in 3 of last 4 years — recurring, not one-time; (2) $1.4M "synergy run-rate" add-back is forward-looking, not historical — most PE buyers reject; (3) $0.9M legal settlement add-back has documented follow-on litigation pending. Defensible add-backs total $2.1M → defensible Adjusted EBITDA = $10.7M.
Prompt: What questions should we ask management in the next DD session?
Output: 1. Top-5 customer concentration jumped from 28% to 41% YoY — what is the renewal timeline and price-increase exposure? 2. Gross margin compressed 320bp; which COGS line caused it? 3. CIM claims 94% NRR but financial supplement shows 87% — reconcile. 4. Three "one-time" restructuring charges in three years — what is the underlying operational issue? 5. Related-party management fee of $480K — what services and would they survive change of control?
Every tier runs inside Intel TDX hardware enclaves. Plans stay in sync with /pricing.
1,000 requests/month, 1 seat. For independent operators, fractional CFOs, search-fund principals.
3 seats, 500 requests/month, 100 MB uploads. For lower mid-market PE and corporate development teams.
10 seats, 5,000 requests/month, 500 MB uploads, API access for deal-CRM integration, 12-month audit log retention.
Unlimited seats, fine-tuning on your firm’s deal playbook, SSO/SAML, dedicated TDX capacity, custom NDA, signed DPA.
Honest comparison. Hardware-rooted confidentiality is what most alternatives are missing.
| Alternative | Pros | Cons vs VoltageGPU |
|---|---|---|
| Hebbia |
|
|
| Rogo |
|
|
| Internal analyst team + ChatGPT |
|
|
Most NDAs prohibit disclosure to third parties and unauthorized processing. The Intel TDX enclave is a hardware boundary — the cloud operator cannot access the data even during processing. This satisfies the NDA standard better than pasting into ChatGPT (which OpenAI can access) or any tool running on shared infrastructure. We can sign a per-deal NDA on the Enterprise tier.
Yes. MNPI exposure is a function of who can read the data. Intel TDX encrypts memory in hardware so even VoltageGPU operators cannot read your prompts or documents during processing. Combined with EU operator location (no CLOUD Act exposure), this is the strongest available architecture for MNPI workflows.
Qwen3-32B inside an Intel TDX enclave on the Starter tier. Pro tier uses the larger Qwen3.5-397B-A17B (256K context — useful for whole-CIM analysis). Enterprise can route to DeepSeek-R1 reasoning for valuation scenario work.
It replaces the document-reading and structured-extraction work that junior analysts do. Judgment calls — deal pricing, negotiation strategy, IC vote — remain with the deal team. Most customers redeploy junior time onto management calls and proprietary research.
Yes. The model handles English, French and German. For French SAS structures, it understands BSA, BSPCE, and ratchets — flagging clauses that hurt common holders. For German GmbH / GmbH & Co. KG structures, it handles the Vorbehaltsgut and Sicherheiten complexity.
Yes, on the Pro tier via the OpenAI-compatible API. Teams use it to auto-summarize CIMs into deal CRM notes, run red-flag screens on inbound teasers, and pre-populate IC memos.
The Financial Analyst agent is a better fit for ongoing portfolio monitoring. The Due Diligence Analyst is optimized for pre-close deal evaluation; the Financial Analyst handles monthly board pack analysis and covenant tracking.
External DD support (Big Four advisory) runs $300-800/hr. A full QoE engagement is $150-400K. The Pro tier ($1,199/mo) handles roughly 5,000 document interactions/month — enough for a busy deal pipeline. The agent supplements rather than replaces the QoE provider, but it dramatically reduces analyst hours.
Intel TDX attestation, EU jurisdiction, French operator (VOLTAGE EI). Cancel anytime.