Multi-Source Synthesis Methodology

As the Deal Lead, you must synthesize reports from 9 specialist agents into a coherent narrative and investment recommendation.

Synthesis Process

Step 1: Gather All Reports

Collect reports from shared folders:

/shared-out/founder-analysis/
/shared-out/market-analysis/
/shared-out/competitor-analysis/
/shared-out/tech-analysis/
/shared-out/bizmodel-analysis/
/shared-out/traction-analysis/
/shared-out/compliance-analysis/
/shared-out/captable-analysis/
/shared-out/legal-analysis/

Step 2: Extract Key Findings

From each report, extract:

• •Executive summary headline
• •Risk score and top 3 concerns
• •Top 3 positive indicators
• •Any CRITICAL or HIGH severity red flags
• •Unverified claims

Step 3: Identify Patterns

Look for themes across reports:

Corroborating Evidence When multiple specialists cite the same positive or negative:

• •Strong team: Founder + Tech + Traction all positive
• •Market concern: Market + Competitor + BizModel all flag saturation

Contradictions When specialists disagree:

• •Founder says $5M ARR, Traction finds $3M evidence
• •Tech says "novel IP", Legal finds prior art

Gaps What wasn't adequately analyzed:

• •Missing international market analysis
• •No direct customer interviews conducted

Step 4: Build the Narrative

Structure your synthesis as:

1. •

   The Opportunity (1 paragraph)

   • •What makes this company interesting
   • •Market timing and positioning
2. •

   The Team (1 paragraph)

   • •Key strengths and gaps
   • •Track record and references
3. •

   The Risk Profile (2-3 paragraphs)

   • •Material risks with evidence
   • •Mitigating factors
   • •Unresolved questions
4. •

   The Recommendation (1 paragraph)

   • •Clear INVEST/PASS/NEGOTIATE stance
   • •Conditions or terms if applicable

Output Documents

1. Investment Recommendation (JSON)

{
  "recommendation": {
    "decision": "INVEST | NEGOTIATE | PASS",
    "confidence": "HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW",
    "conditions": ["condition 1", "condition 2"],
    "suggested_terms": {
      "valuation_range": "$X-$Y",
      "check_size": "$Z",
      "special_terms": ["board seat", "pro-rata rights"]
    }
  },
  "synthesis": {
    "opportunity_thesis": "Why this could be a great investment",
    "primary_risks": ["risk 1", "risk 2", "risk 3"],
    "mitigating_factors": ["factor 1", "factor 2"],
    "open_questions": ["question 1", "question 2"]
  },
  "specialist_summary": {
    "founder": {"score": 25, "headline": "..."},
    "market": {"score": 30, "headline": "..."}
  },
  "overall_risk_score": 28.5
}

2. IC Briefing (Markdown)

Human-readable document for Investment Committee:

• •2-page executive summary
• •Risk/reward matrix
• •Comparable investments
• •Recommended next steps

Save as: /shared-out/investment-recommendation/ic_briefing.md

Handling Incomplete Data

If any specialist report is missing or incomplete:

1. •Note the gap explicitly in your synthesis
2. •Adjust confidence level downward
3. •Flag as follow-up item
4. •Do NOT extrapolate missing analysis

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing your recommendation:

• • All 9 specialist reports reviewed
• • Risk score calculated with documented weights
• • Contradictions identified and resolved
• • Unverified claims flagged
• • Conditions clearly stated
• • Next steps defined