Normalization
Venture information enters the system and is normalized for review.
Evaluation
Coverage is assessed, reconciled, and structured into formal judgments.
Archive
Reviewed coverage is released for reference by subscribing firms and investors.
TO ESTABLISH A COMMON INTELLIGENCE RECORD THAT REDUCES REDUNDANT AND INCONSISTENT DUE DILIGENCE ACROSS THE VENTURE ENVIRONMENT
External Interfaces
For venture firms accessing the intelligence record as part of their internal diligence and evaluation processes.
For companies engaging in structured dialogue in connection with evaluation and representation within the intelligence record.
Venture Due Diligence Archive · Early stage Research · Independent Coverage
Frequently asked questions
What standards govern the production and persistence of intelligence within CVI?
All intelligence is produced under a single analytical framework with uniform integrity requirements.
Persistence is conditional: material remains in the record only while it withstands structured review and subsequent scrutiny.
How does CVI maintain independence across investors, companies, and analysts?
CVN does not act on behalf of firms, companies, or contributors.
Analytical authority, authorship, and publication control reside solely with the organization and are governed by process rather than relationship.
How is disagreement handled when judgments conflict or evolve over time?
Disagreement is expected and formally surfaced through review and escalation.
Judgments are revised, clarified, or withdrawn based on evidentiary resolution rather than consensus or seniority.
What determines whether intelligence is retained, revised, or withdrawn?
Retention depends on continued analytical defensibility under current standards.
Revision or withdrawal occurs when material error, insufficient support, or unresolved contradiction is identified.
What role do investors and companies play in the intelligence record once it exists?
Investors reference the record for internal evaluation.
Ventures may engage in structured dialogue concerning accuracy, context, or evolution of material within the record.
Neither party controls authorship or outcome.