Workflows
Every step of the deal, done faster and done right
The work that decides a deal, and what Navent does with each part of it. Every process here is your firm’s own: adopt what ships, edit it, or replace it with your method.
Drop in the deck. Navent reads it into a company card, fact by fact, each one linked to the slide it came from, then runs the first-look checks side by side: what they do, fit with your thesis, market and competition, founders, and what would stop you. Every criterion is scored against a section of the thesis your partners wrote, and the score points at the line it came from.
What you get
- A fit table, criterion by criterion: strong, partial, weak or unknown
- Two emails drafted, the meeting and the pass, both specific — Navent never says which to send, and never sends either
- The deck’s adjectives left out: “leading” is a claim, not a finding
The step lifts the market claims out of the deck with the slides they sit on, then rebuilds the number from the bottom: who the buyers actually are, how many of them, and what each one pays. Where a figure arrives without a period or a definition behind it, Navent says so instead of assuming one.
What you get
- The deck’s assumptions, stated plainly, each with its source
- A bottom-up rebuild that follows your firm’s own instruction for it
- Every number checked against the documents it was drawn from, and flagged when it is not there
Competitors, funding history, patents and trade marks come from named registers — the European Patent Office and EUIPO, asked by company name. Anything headed for the open web passes a guard first. It knows the deal’s own names, read out of the deal’s own documents, and each name carries the sensitivity of the document it appeared in.
What you get
- Queries rewritten or refused before they leave, with the reason on the record
- Patents and trade marks, and whose name they are in
- Every source filed in the deal, citable like any other document
A process map runs the deal, from thesis fit to the decision itself. Each step carries the instruction it will follow and the evidence it expects — yours to edit, or to replace with the method your firm already works to — and nothing runs until a named person approves that step. What comes back arrives pending, with its sources, until somebody rules on it.
What you get
- The instruction each step follows, in front of you before you approve it
- Evidence the room lacks, written down as a finding in its own right — no model, nothing spent
- Register and public-record contradictions raised automatically, by plain comparison rather than a model
The legal section asks for the cap table, prior terms, IP ownership and the material contracts by name — including side letters, which are filed separately and easy to miss. The instruction is blunt about the trap: never assume the SAFE stack converts at the headline cap, read the mechanics and state them.
What you get
- Side letters asked for by name, and their absence recorded rather than assumed away
- Change-of-control, exclusivity and MFN clauses named, not summarised
- An investor on public record but missing from the room, with the obvious question: ask for the full cap table
Some steps can only be answered by a person, and your process says which. Your call notes go into the room as a document, take a label like anything else and become citable; the finding you write from them carries your name and counts the moment you save it, because reviewing your own work is theatre.
What you get
- The questions your own method says to ask, in front of you before the call
- Notes that become sources, cited by a memo the same way a contract is
- Your conclusions in the memo beside the machine’s, and marked as yours
It is assembled only from findings a person accepted; the composer is never handed the data room again. Your sections and headings shape it, and what did not make it is listed rather than quietly dropped.
What you get
- Stated as unexamined: every step nobody answered, named with its question
- Not in the memo: pending, challenged and rejected findings, each with its ruling
- Exported with an evidence appendix: every claim, the finding under it, who accepted it, and its sources
One table across the firm: how far each deal has got, and what it is waiting on — blocked steps, findings to decide, labels to confirm. Deals that have gone quiet say so themselves.
What you get
- Sorted by what needs attention, not alphabetically
- A decided deal stops: the server refuses new runs, while the whole record stays readable
- The original findings, and the reason you passed, in front of you next round
Case study: follow-on decisions with the full history in view
Start where it hurts most
Most funds begin with the data room. We’ll have it running on a live deal in week one.