Ask Your Data Which Site Wins

By the time a shortlist reaches a committee, the work is done. Each candidate has a weighted score, a set of risks, a pro forma, and a pile of demographic context. The data exists. What is hard is asking a question that crosses all of it at once.

"Which site has the best score relative to its downside risk?" "Which candidates clear our return threshold but carry an open high-severity risk?" "Show me the two sites where the scoring team disagreed the most." Those are the questions that actually decide deals, and answering them usually means exporting three views into a spreadsheet and building the join by hand. The data was never the bottleneck. Getting a straight answer out of it was.

MyDealTeams connects to Claude as a data connector. You ask a question in plain English, and Claude reads your live records to answer it: evaluations and their weighted scores, the criteria behind them, site financials, risks, pros and cons, approval readiness, locations, and portfolios.

Because it reads the current records rather than a copy, the answer reflects the deal as it stands today, not a spreadsheet somebody exported last month. Ask which shortlisted site scores highest relative to its risk, and you get an answer drawn from the same evaluation the committee will see, with the numbers it will see.

This is the line most of this market cannot say yet. Not a search box with better filters. A question, in your own words, answered from your own live data.

This is the part worth being precise about, because the industry is full of tools that blur it.

Claude reads your records and answers questions about them. It does not invent the score, and it does not decide which site you should sign. The weighting is your team's criteria. The scores are your team's judgment. The threshold is your team's policy. The connector surfaces what your data already says, quickly and in plain language. The decision stays with the people accountable for it.

That distinction is not a disclaimer. It is the whole point. A tool that quietly makes the call for you produces a number nobody can defend. A tool that reads your records back to you, faster than you could pivot them yourself, makes your own judgment easier to apply and easier to explain.

The reason this matters beyond convenience is defensibility. When the answer is read from the same records that carry your weighted criteria, your scorers, and your audit trail, it traces back to real inputs. You can follow "site B is stronger relative to risk" down to the specific scores and the specific risks that make it true.

Contrast that with a black-box score that hands you a number and no way to explain it. If you cannot say what drove the answer, you cannot defend it when a committee member pushes back, and you should not want to. Reading the answer from auditable records is what keeps the speed honest.

The connector is only as good as the records underneath it. If a site has no income statement on file, no amount of asking will conjure one, and the connector will tell you the data is not there rather than guess. It answers questions about what you have entered; it does not manufacture inputs you have not.

That is the trade we are comfortable with. Ask your data a real question and get a real answer, read from live records, with the decision still yours to make.

MyDealTeams is free during Early Access: Community free, Pro $69/month, everything free while we are in Early Access. Nothing to lose, and a deal team to organize.