Diligence evidence, ready for review.
By Axeron AI
Before a manager meeting, a chief investment officer needs to distinguish supported answers from unresolved questions. A polished summary helps only when the reviewer can trace its statements to the supplied evidence and see where the documents disagree.
Standardized inquiry is an established part of manager diligence. ILPA's Due Diligence Questionnaire provides a common structure for the areas investors investigate. Our recorded example uses an original, short checklist to demonstrate how a team can organize evidence around that kind of structured review. ILPA Due Diligence Questionnaire.
Six questions, one explicit method.
In Relay, the CIO supplies six questions and two dated demonstration sources. The questions cover reporting ownership, the review cadence for valuation records, committee-pack review, service-provider review, an operating backup, and evidence retained when an exception is resolved.
The instructions define what an acceptable answer looks like: preserve the question and source identifiers, quote the relevant evidence, and label each finding Supported, Conflict, or Not provided. The two sources have equal priority. The team must preserve disagreements and keep unanswered questions open.
That method turns an open-ended request into work the CIO can inspect. A missing answer becomes an item to follow up, with a clear statement of what evidence would close it.
Three roles, with separate responsibilities.
We create a reusable team in the selected project. The Evidence Analyst builds the source matrix. The Challenge Reviewer checks each finding against the packet. The Brief Editor prepares the review brief.
Before starting, we inspect the dependent tasks and tailor the team's selected tools for this document-based assignment. Orchestrator then shows the recorded execution and the files produced as the roles work through the plan.
The walkthrough is edited to show the useful steps. The complete process includes waiting, review, and correction; the film does not represent its running time as the time required to finish the job.
A finished draft, still open to challenge.
The CIO's review continues after the first draft. We ask for clear attribution, a concise executive summary, and proposed follow-up questions. We inspect the document history and reopen the updated result.
The accepted matrix preserves two significant open items. One source says valuation records are reviewed monthly, while the other says quarterly. Both remain visible as a conflict. Neither source identifies the Operations Lead's backup, so that answer remains Not provided.
The follow-up questions are concrete: request the governing review policy and confirm the approved backup role. Supported findings retain their source references. The CIO can take those questions into the next meeting and decide whether the responses provide sufficient evidence.
A pilot, with a measurable result.
The demonstrated benefit is clearer preparation: a structured matrix, visible disagreements, and questions tied to the evidence needed to resolve them. The team prepares a review brief; the CIO retains the assessment and the decision.
For a pilot, use the same packet in the current process and the Relay workflow. Compare preparation and review time, correct source references, missed contradictions, and required corrections. Those measures can establish whether the workflow earns a place in the office's routine; this demonstration does not supply a savings estimate.
Bring one diligence packet and a clear acceptance method. Use Relay by Axeron AI to build, review, and refine the preparation around the way your team works.