Deal sourcing & pipeline screening
Can AI find and screen deals? Yes for surfacing and ranking candidates from messy signals a database doesn't hold — before they show up in any vendor feed. No for conviction: the model orders the pipeline, it does not decide what you back.
| The pain | A sourcing team wants the right companies in front of it before a competitor gets there. That means watching a firehose — news, hiring pages, product launches, reviews, filings, sector chatter — and matching it against a thesis, then keeping a pipeline of who was seen, scored and passed. Done by hand it is a few analysts reading the internet and maintaining a spreadsheet that is stale the day it is built. |
|---|---|
| What AI does today | Read the unstructured firehose and surface companies that fit a thesis, rank them against your criteria in natural language, and keep the pipeline updated with fresh signals. The boundary: a database filter answers a structured question deterministically; AI earns its place on the signal that isn't in any field — a hiring surge, a founder's post, a review trend — and on ranking fit in language rather than hard thresholds. |
| Proof it's real | Production-verified (deployer-confirmed). EQT's Motherbrain has run since 2016 — the firm's own platform combining external and internal data to source and assess opportunities, publicly credited with sourcing multiple completed investments (Peakon among them), with years of independent press coverage. This is the deployer speaking about its own system in production — the strongest evidence class in this library. Newest evidence: 2026. |
| What it can't do | It cannot form conviction — that is where the human sits: the diligence, the relationship and the price are the dealmaker's work, and EQT itself frames the system as supporting, not replacing, the decision. A model that looks confident about a market it half-understands will surface plausible-but-wrong candidates, and it inherits its data's blind spots: a company invisible to its sources is invisible to it. |
| The real alternatives |
|
| What you need in place | Your CRM and pass-history as training context (the system learns from what you've seen and declined); licensed data feeds (the signal layer is mostly paid data); and honest ownership — the sourcing lead owns the pipeline, and the firm decides upfront how a model-surfaced lead enters IC materials, so provenance is never fuzzy. In a multi-strategy house, data licences and CRM choices are usually central decisions — check what the centre already pays for before pricing anything new. |
| Effort & cost |
|
| What to watch | Check what it misses, not just what it ranks. A sourcing tool that only surfaces the obvious names is repackaging a database; the value is the non-obvious candidate found early. And watch for a confident score on a company the underlying data barely covers. |
Prompt to try: screen a long list of companies against the fund thesis
The prompt screens a long list of companies against your thesis criteria, ties every score to a cited signal, and returns a linked pipeline your team can rank and challenge.
- 1Map the sourcesLong list, thesis, CRM, signals
- 2Trace the preparationWhere each data point came from
- 3Match and reconcileCompany IDs, names across sources
- 4Build the linked workbookScored pipeline, signal cited
5. Controls (must pass)Every company on the list scoredScores recalculate from the weightsEvery signal sourced and in datePast CRM passes excluded, with reasonFour-eyes sign-off
6. Measured over timeBack-test finds every known difference0 corrections after sign-offCycle time vs manualRolls forward with 0 manual edits
Before you start:
- Use your firm's approved AI tool, not a personal account.
- Mask investor names and any data your policy keeps out of AI tools.
- Replace the parts in [brackets] before you run it.
You are helping an investment analyst screen the attached long list of companies against our thesis for [strategy]. A human reviewer checks everything you produce. You do not recommend an investment.
I attach:
- Long list: [companies with any IDs]
- Thesis: [criteria and weights]
- CRM export: [existing relationships and past decisions, with each decision's date and reason]
Work through the six steps below. Show the result of each step before you move on.
STEP 1. MAP THE SOURCES
For each file, record: who produced it; the as-at date it states (not the date it was sent); the currency; what one row or section represents; the fields that identify a company; the value fields and how each is labelled; and any subtotals, hidden rows, merged cells or footnotes that change how it should be read. Where the files differ in as-at date, period or currency, list each difference and say how you will handle it: convert at an FX rate from the Inputs tab with its source, or compare like periods only. Stop and ask me only if a difference means two figures cannot validly be compared.
STEP 2. TRACE THE PREPARATION
For each data point, say where it came from (database, company website, news, filing) and how current it is.
Label each statement "stated in the file" or "my inference".
STEP 3. MATCH AND RECONCILE
3a. Keys. List company IDs (registration number, LEI, website domain) across the list and the CRM.
3b. Names. Describe naming differences: trading vs legal names, group vs subsidiary, rebrands.
3c. Standardise. Apply numbered rules in new columns.
3d. Map. Link companies to CRM records, with match method and reason.
STEP 4. BUILD THE LINKED WORKBOOK
Build an .xlsx file with these tabs, in this order:
- Index: a link to each tab, one line on what it holds, the as-at date, and the steps to refresh the workbook next period.
- Inputs: the review date, criteria weights, thresholds, and the age limit for signals; plus the as-at date of each source file, with any differences between them and how each is handled; any FX rates needed, with their source and date, and the tolerance for agreement with documents (0.00 wherever exact agreement is required). Each value carries its source beside it, and every formula that needs one points here.
- _Source tabs: each file exactly as received, one tab per file. Never edit these tabs.
- Map: companies linked to the CRM, with the match method ("shared ID", "standardised name" or "suggested, needs review"), the reason, the CRM past decision with its date and reason, and the person who confirmed each suggested match and the date.
- Scores: one row per company, with each criterion's score, the signal, its source and its date, the signal's age at the review date against the age limit on the Inputs tab, a weighted total by formula and an above-threshold flag against the threshold on the Inputs tab. Each row carries its source document and the page, cell or row reference for each figure.
- Pipeline: a formula-driven ranking of the Scores rows, excluding companies already passed on in the CRM; below the ranking, an exclusions table lists each excluded company with its CRM decision, decision date and reason, looked up through the Map tab.
- Exceptions: one row per failed control, untraced or disagreeing figure, unconfirmed match and open query, with a type column ("failed control", "untraced or disagrees", "unconfirmed match", "query" or "timing difference"), its owner, status ("open" or "closed"), expected clearing date and the approver's sign-off (name and date).
- Checks: the controls in step 5.
- KPIs: the measures in step 6.
- _Log: the audit trail in step 6, with the names of the preparer and the approver.
Every derived number is a formula that leads back to a _Source tab or the Inputs tab. Nothing is typed in as a value. Use Excel tables and XLOOKUP or INDEX/MATCH. Wrap lookups in IFERROR and show "Not found", never zero. Dates as yyyy-mmm-dd, negatives in brackets, units in every value header, header rows frozen, no decorative formatting.
STEP 5. CONTROLS (EVERY ONE MUST PASS BEFORE SIGN-OFF)
On the Checks tab, write each control as a formula that returns TRUE or FALSE, with the count or difference beside it. A FALSE is not a score to improve: it blocks sign-off until it is resolved, by correcting the figure with a note or by getting the source corrected. An explanation alone does not clear it. The only item that may stay open at sign-off is a timing difference with an expected clearing date: it is listed by name on the Exceptions tab as a reconciling item and re-checked next period. A document tie-out failure is never a timing difference and can never be carried. Show every FALSE at the top of the Index tab under "Checks failing".
a. Complete: every company on the long list has a Scores row. Target: 0 unexplained rows.
b. Pipeline agrees: the Pipeline rows equal the Scores rows less the CRM exclusions. Target: a difference of 0.
c. Formula-linked: every calculated cell is a formula (test with ISFORMULA), and there are no #N/A or #REF errors. Target: 100%.
d. Tied to documents: on the Scores tab, every score cites the signal's source and date. Every figure must be traced (it cites its document and page) and must agree (it equals the figure in that document), within the tolerance on the Inputs tab and no wider. Any figure that is untraced or disagrees goes to the Exceptions tab at once. If the document itself looks wrong, for example a signal whose source gives a different date or figure, raise it as a query; never change the workbook to make it agree. Target: 100%.
e. Matches confirmed: count the rows matched by shared ID, by standardised name and by suggestion. Target: 0 suggested matches left unconfirmed at sign-off.
f. Scores recalculate: every weighted total on the Scores tab is the criterion scores times the criteria weights on the Inputs tab, and the weights sum to 100%. Target: a difference of 0.
g. Signals: every signal carries its source and date, and none is older than the age limit on the Inputs tab.
h. Exclusions: every company already passed on in the CRM is excluded, with the reason.
i. Open exceptions: count the Exceptions rows that are not closed, leaving out only named timing differences with an expected clearing date. Target: 0.
j. Four-eyes: the _Log names the preparer and the approver, who must be different people, and the approver signs off every Exceptions line.
STEP 6. REUSABLE, AUDITABLE AND MEASURED
- Reusable: next period, a person replaces the _Source tabs and updates the Inputs tab, and every other tab recalculates. Keep the Map tab so confirmed matches carry forward.
- Auditable: on the _Log tab, list each source file (name, producer, as-at date, date received, row count, control total), every rule and match you applied with the reason, every assumption, and who prepared and approved. Never overwrite source data. A correction goes in a separate column with a note.
- Measured: add a KPIs tab that the team fills in each period: back-test recall (run on a past period with known answers; share of known differences found; target 100%, and do not adopt the workbook below that); items agreed first time with no manual fix; items flagged that turned out fine; corrections made by the reviewer before sign-off; corrections found after sign-off (target 0); manual edits outside the Inputs and _Source tabs at refresh (target 0); and cycle time in hours from receiving the files to sign-off, against the manual baseline.
If your tool cannot create an .xlsx file, give me each tab as a table plus the exact formula for the first row of every calculated column.
At the end, give me companies screened, companies above the threshold, and companies already in the CRM, the result of every check, and a list of anything you were unsure about.What good output looks like:
- Every score has a cited signal.
- Companies already passed on are excluded with the reason.
- Weights sit in Inputs, so the team can test them.
- Every control on the Checks tab reads TRUE before sign-off. Only a timing difference with an expected clearing date is carried as a reconciling item.
How to know it worked:
- Back-test: run it on a past period where the answers are known. Adopt it only if it finds every known difference.
- After sign-off: no corrections are found later.
- Over time: fewer reviewer corrections and false flags, and a cycle time below the manual process.
Who signs off: The deal team decides which companies to approach. The workbook is the working file, not the record.
In practice: change the weights in Inputs and see whether the top of the list moves; a ranking that swings a lot is telling you the thesis is not settled.
Questions operators ask
Does AI actually find deals, or just rank lists?
There is at least one deployer-confirmed answer: EQT publicly credits its Motherbrain platform with sourcing completed investments over nearly a decade of production use. The honest caveat: that took an in-house platform and a data team, not a subscription — most "AI sourcing" products are closer to smarter list-ranking.
Is AI sourcing better than PitchBook screening?
Different questions. A vendor screen answers structured criteria over covered companies, deterministically. AI adds value on uncovered signals (hiring, product traction, chatter) and thesis-fit in language — if your edge is early, non-obvious names. If your criteria are structured, the screen you already pay for is the right tool.
Related: data-room & due-diligence first pass and the Fund AI desk.