How an AI agent can prepare an investment brief that separates external data from internal judgment
This workflow gives an AI agent a defined job, a bounded set of records, and a result a person can review. The agent reads the relevant PitchBook context and matches it with Google Drive, applies the rules in the prompt, and keeps the source behind every recommendation. It returns a proposed handoff rather than taking consequential actions on its own.
Can an AI agent prepare an investment brief that separates external data from internal judgment?
Yes. Start with the scope, date range, decision rules, and fields that identify the right records. The agent can collect the evidence, compare states or sources, mark conflicts and missing data, and organize the result around the outcome above. A reviewer then checks the matches and judgment calls before approving messages, record updates, bookings, purchases, publishing, or other write actions. The guide below shows the records, boundaries, prompt, and handoff needed for this specific workflow.
Label every source
PitchBook supplies company, financing, investor, transaction, and market records. Google Drive supplies internal theses, models, meeting notes, and committee documents. Combining them can produce an investment brief that shows where external evidence supports, contradicts, or leaves gaps in the internal view.
Define the Drive folders and PitchBook entities in scope. The agent should label each claim as PitchBook data, internal document, calculation, or open question. It must not let a projection in a model appear as reported company performance or treat an old internal note as the current committee view.
Example starter prompt
Prepare a research brief on [company or market] using PitchBook [entities] and Google Drive [approved folders]. Use an as-of date of [date].
For each claim, cite the PitchBook record or Drive file and label reported data, internal assumptions, calculations, and conflicting evidence. Preserve currencies, periods, and document versions. List missing data and questions for the analyst.
Draft the brief only. Do not edit Drive files or present a buy, sell, or investment recommendation.Reconcile conflicts instead of choosing silently
When a Drive model and PitchBook record differ, show both figures, periods, and sources. The analyst can decide whether the difference reflects timing, definition, currency, or a genuine disagreement.
Questions this workflow answers
Can an analyst combine market data with internal notes without blurring fact, forecast, and opinion?
Yes, if the agent builds the brief from claims with explicit provenance rather than merging documents into one voice. It first inventories the approved internal files by title, owner, version, modified date, and status. Draft models, meeting notes, committee materials, and signed-off theses are different source types. The agent also resolves the external company or fund entities and sets one as-of date for the research.
Each claim in the draft carries a source label. A financing event can be attributed to a PitchBook record. A revenue projection can be attributed to a named model tab and scenario. A founder statement can be attributed to dated meeting notes. An analyst conclusion is labeled as judgment rather than rewritten as company fact. When a paragraph depends on several sources, the agent shows which sentence came from which record.
Conflicts become useful work. If an internal model uses a different round amount, ownership figure, currency, or fiscal period from the external source, the brief presents both values and their definitions. It can calculate a normalized comparison only when the formula and inputs are visible. It never chooses the newer file merely because of its modified date or assumes a private-company field is complete.
The review package includes the draft brief, claim-level citations, source register, calculation sheet, conflicts, and missing diligence questions. Restricted notes stay within their permitted audience, and no Drive permissions or files change during drafting. The analyst decides which internal assumptions remain, which external facts need another source, and what can appear in a committee document. That review preserves a trace from the final sentence back to the evidence used to write it.
The final handoff should include a source register and all calculations needed to reproduce derived values.