When two documents disagree
The strata report says the sinking fund is adequately funded with no special levies proposed. You read it, you noted it, you told the client the building looks well run. Seven days later the committee minutes land. Somewhere on page eleven, the committee discusses a proposed special levy for remedial concrete works.
Same deal. Opposite claims. And you would have caught it, if you'd reread the first document at the moment the second one arrived.
Would you, though? Be honest about it on the deal that isn't the only one you're running. Three files deep, the one from Monday already crowded out by two auctions and a finance deadline, would you actually go back and reread page eleven of a report you already filed as fine?
Nobody rereads the first document
This isn't a diligence failure. It's an ordering problem. Documents arrive over days or weeks, you read each one properly when it lands, and by the time the fourth one shows up the first is three weeks and two deals behind you. The contradiction doesn't sit in either document. It sits between them, and you only ever have one open at a time.
The contradiction doesn't sit in either document. It sits between them, and you only ever have one open at a time.
What the cross-document check does
Every time a new document is analysed on a deal, its claims are compared against the facts already established there. Contradictions get flagged. So do corroborations, which matter more than they sound: two independent documents agreeing is a different quality of evidence than one document asserting.
You don't run it. It runs when the second document lands, because that's the only moment the comparison is possible. Whether that's the only deal you have open or the fifth one this week doesn't change anything about when it runs.
It shows both sides, quoted
A flagged contradiction isn't a summary telling you two documents disagree. It's the earlier document's quote, a conflicts with divider, then the new document's quote, each with a page link back to where it came from. If only one side is actually on record, it's shown on its own rather than dressed up as a disagreement.
That ordering is deliberate. Evidence first, then inference. You read what each document actually said, on the page it said it, and then you decide which one you believe, because that call is yours and it was never going to be anything else.
Supporting evidence from elsewhere collapses into a Backed by N other documents pill you can expand, so a well-corroborated finding doesn't bury the one that needs your attention.
Why this is the part a CRM can't reach
A CRM knows the deal exists and what stage it's at. It has no idea what's inside the documents attached to it, so it cannot know that two of them disagree. That isn't a gap in any particular CRM. It's a different job. Here's where the line sits.
We're building this with a small first group of buyer's agents. If you've ever found the contradiction late, or worse, found out from the client, we'd like to talk to you.
Apply for a founding partner spot