From first screen to investment committee — without rebuilding the evidence at every stage.
Deal teams carry a target from first screen to signed diligence file on one evidence layer.
Investment teams often have the data — but not the same evidence layer across the deal.
Filings, data room, registry records and market data each live in a different place and a different format.
The same company gets re-read at screening, at diligence and again before committee.
By the time a number reaches the memo, the page it came from is a folder reference at best.
A first pass that would need a week of assembly gets done on a summary instead.
Work done at screening rarely survives into diligence in a form the next analyst can use.
Tracing a figure back to disclosure means finding the analyst who built the exhibit.
One evidence layer from sourcing to portfolio.
Sanclarity is designed to keep the company, documents, transactions, valuation assumptions and evidence connected throughout the investment lifecycle. The file does not get rebuilt at each stage — it gets deeper.
Build a candidate set from structure and disclosure rather than from a list someone circulated.
The analyst reviews and challenges the output rather than manually reconstructing every exhibit. Designed to reduce analyst reconstruction — judgment, review and approval stay with the analyst.
Decision-ready, evidence-linked output.
Source → reasoning → structured output → evidence → analyst review. The intent is minimal analyst reconstruction, not an AI-generated paragraph that has to be rebuilt before it can be used.
One file per subject, assembled rather than written.
A position with the reasoning behind it, not a summary.
Intrinsic and market-based views with assumptions exposed.
Findings ranked by severity, each with supporting evidence.
Flows, counterparties and treatment set against the disclosure.
Changes that touch a stated assumption, not a notification feed.
An answer you cannot check is an opinion.
Every figure and finding keeps the disclosure it was read from, at the line level. That is what makes the output reviewable — a colleague, a committee or a regulator can open the source rather than take the conclusion on trust.
Users are responsible for reviewing and validating outputs before relying on them for material decisions.