Before every important memo, model and thesis.
Built for investment committees, deal teams, and the people who prepare memos for them.
Before the committee.
The Monday before IC, the case has been through the team three times. Everyone agrees. That is the problem.
Four frontier models, no shared context, no incentive to converge. They challenge the deal, surface what the deck doesn't, and put the dissent on paper. By IC morning, the hardest question has already been asked.
Read what comes out.
PE Acquisition: 14x EBITDA Red-Team
€140m mid-market industrial SaaS, IC red-team. Panel: probability-weighted IRR 12–16% vs 20–25% hurdle. Bid fails.
GLP-1 Portfolio: Three-Legged Concentration
€180m RIA, 22% healthcare overweight on a single thesis. Panel: close SYK short, halve ISRG, collar Lilly, 50% USD hedge.
Palantir (PLTR): Pre-Publication Research Review
Draft equity research note uploaded for multi-model review. Panel finds double-counting that pulls the $185 PT to ~$140 once corrected.
These are anonymised samples. The real value is what we'd find in your specific case: a memo, model, or thesis from your own pipeline, run by the same four-model panel under NDA. Request a free first analysis at the link below.
Run yours instead
We do the first analysis on your document free, after a brief access request and mutual NDA. Upload a memo, model, or thesis from your pipeline; receive the same structured challenge report you've seen in the samples above, on your data.
Request a free first analysis →You get the best frontier AI models, with the panel curated continuously. We track the leaderboards, manage four vendor APIs, and pick the strongest entry from each leading provider, so your team doesn't have to.
Where it fits.
Investment committee and board papers
Acquisition cases, large capital deployments, board-level strategic decisions. The set-piece moments where the dissent has to be on paper.
Position and concentration review
Refresh the case for each holding. Surface where the original thesis no longer holds, where conviction has drifted, where concentration has crept.
Market view or sector thesis
Walk a macro call, sector view, or strategy memo past four models before it lands in print or in front of clients.
Memo and research challenge
Run the analyst's draft past four readers who do not know the team, do not know the house view, and have no incentive to agree.
Why four models, not one.
One model asked for “four perspectives” is one set of weights playing four roles. Four frontier models from four labs have genuinely different training data, different alignment regimes, different blind spots. Independence is not a prompt. It is an architecture.
Push back on any single model and it caves. Ask it to steelman your case and it agrees with itself. The four models in Conclavik do not see each other's output until the cross-examination round. There is no social pressure to converge.
One model lists ten risks. You don't know which two matter. When four independent models flag the same risk, that is a signal. Agreement scores and the dissent map tell the IC where conviction is real and where the blind spot lives.
What this is not.
- 01Not equity research. No buy / sell / hold. No price targets. No analyst coverage. The output is a structured multi-model decision review: what to challenge, what to verify, what to monitor.
- 02Not a chatbot wrapper. Four independent models, structured debate phases, deterministic report schema. The infrastructure is the product, not the prompts.
- 03Not a replacement for the deal team. Conclavik does not run the model, build the deck, or take the meeting. It is the challenge function, used the night before, not instead of.
- 04Not investment advice. Reports are tooling for decision-makers, not regulated advice. No fiduciary relationship, no execution.