- Before
- Spends most of a review reading the data room and chasing documents by email, then checks a sample of claims by hand. “I don't need a summary of the DDQ. I need to know where the DDQ is wrong.”
- Now
- Opens a structure already drawn and checked, with 146 claims sorted into verified, single source and contradiction; asks the agents why, opens each source, and approves every confirmation before it goes.
One operational due diligence review, from data room to funding gate
Quillfield Capital's Multi-Manager Solutions team proposes a $150 million allocation to Fernhill Macro Fund SICAV-RAIF, a $2.41 billion Luxembourg global macro fund with a Delaware feeder, managed by Fernhill Capital Management LLP in London. Review ODD-2026-0417 is on day 11 of its 30, and the committee meets on October 29. Nadia Okafor works the review with seven agents: she asks them questions in plain words, they answer with the page behind every claim, and nothing is sent, submitted or signed until a person approves it. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
- 01Tuesday, 8:40 a.m.
The agents worked overnight; one thing needs her first
Nadia Okafor · Senior ODD AnalystNadia has 7 of the team's 41 reviews in progress; 6 reviews are past their service level, 3 ratings wait for sign-off and the Monitoring agent has raised 8 re-review triggers. Overnight the Intake agent read Fernhill's 38 documents, the Structure agent drew 10 entities, the Verifier checked 146 claims and the Findings agent drafted 2 findings with Conditional proposed. Each item under Needs you carries one next step, and an ask box under the agents' overnight log takes her questions.
Needs you: “Fernhill Macro Fund: the administrator in the questionnaire is not the one in the audited accounts.”
- 02Open the structure
The manager's operating structure, every entity checked
Structure agent · Verifier agentThe map shows the fund, its US feeder, the general partner, the AIFM, the investment manager, the valuation agent, the administrator, the depositary, the auditor and the two prime brokers, each with a verification ring. The administrator, Calder Fund Services (Luxembourg) S.A., shows 13 of 16 claims verified and two contradictions, with finding F-1 pinned to it. The prime brokers are partly verified while Ardent Prime's reply is awaited.
“Drawn from 38 documents · each entity checked against a source the manager does not control.”
- 03She asks
“Why is this a contradiction?”, answered with three sources
Nadia Okafor and the Verifier agentBeside the map sits the agents' conversation about the administrator. Nadia asks why it is a contradiction. The Verifier answers that three sources the manager does not control agree with each other and not with the manager: audited note 2, Calder's own reply that its appointment ended February 28, and the regulator's register for Valmont. The questionnaire, dated August 14, five months after the change, still says no provider changed in three years.
Next step, from the Verifier: “I drafted a confirmation request to Valmont … Nothing is sent until you approve it.”
- 04One click on the citation
The French audit note says what the DDQ does not
Verifier agentNadia opens the source behind the answer. The DDQ, dated August 14, 2026, says Calder “has acted as the Fund's administrator since launch in 2019”, and Form ADV, filed March 27, 2026, names Calder at Schedule D question 26. Note 2 of the 2025 audited financial statements opens at page 14 in French beside the English: with effect from March 1, 2026, the Board of Managers of the General Partner appointed Valmont Fund Administration S.A., replacing Calder.
Every source opens at its page, the original language beside the English.
- 05Approve and send
A confirmation to Valmont, from the regulator's register
Nadia Okafor · Senior ODD AnalystThe Verifier's draft goes to client.oversight@valmont-fa.lu, the address in the Luxembourg regulator's register, and asks Valmont to confirm its appointment and start date, that it calculates the NAV and sends investor statements, the net asset value at September 30, 2026, and its 2025 SOC 1 Type II report, by October 27. Nadia approves it with reason code CF-01, signed with her name and the time; rejecting it would need a reason code and a note, send nothing and leave the Verifier to redraft from her note. Calder, the auditor and the depositary, the last in German, have already replied and been reconciled; Ardent Prime is due October 22.
“The request goes to client.oversight@valmont-fa.lu, the address in the Luxembourg regulator register. The manager is not copied.”
- 06Findings and rating
Two cited findings, and a second agent checks every sentence
Policy agent · Findings agent · Review agentF-1 (High): the administrator change was not disclosed. F-2 (Medium): the valuation policy lets the portfolio manager override a Level 3 price and tell the Valuation Committee only afterwards, while the DDQ says the committee approves every Level 3 price; Level 3 is 6.8% of NAV, $164.0 million. Nadia can accept, edit or reject each draft with a reason, or raise her own finding from any entity. The Review agent finds 31 of 31 sentences cited and returns one note, applied to the draft: F-2 now states the Level 3 share.
House rule: “a High finding blocks Pass; Conditional needs conditions precedent.”
- 07Submitted · signed
The analyst submits; the Head of ODD signs Conditional
Nadia Okafor and Evelyn HartmannNadia submits Conditional with conditions C-1 and C-2 for sign-off. She cannot sign her own submission. Evelyn Hartmann, Head of Operational Due Diligence, opens the rating, chooses Conditional and signs with reason code RT-02, “Conditions precedent to funding”. Her signature, its time and the reason are written to the audit trail.
- 08The report
A cited ODD report, final once signed
Findings agent · Review agentThe operational due diligence report reads in five sections: summary, the structure, findings, observations and sign-off, with a sources index. Each entity in the structure shows what it was checked against and the result. The status reads Signed Conditional, 31 of 31 sentences cited from 25 sources, drafted by the Findings agent and checked by the Review agent; one click exports it to document management.
“We rate the Fund Conditional. Its operating structure is sound and independently confirmed: the depositary, the auditor and the regulators’ registers agree with what the manager told us.”
- 09Thursday, October 29
The committee decides; the money waits for both conditions
Rajiv Menon · CIO and committee chairThe Alternatives Investment Committee agenda holds six allocations, $535 million. Fernhill's ODD rating is read-only. The funding gate holds the $150,000,000 subscription to class I USD, dealing day December 1, 2026, in the order management system until Fund Operations clears C-1 and C-2 with evidence and the COO approves each clearance.
“The committee decides the investment. It reads the ODD rating and cannot change it.”
- 10Across the approved list
One provider, every manager that uses it
Monitoring agentCalder administered 23 approved managers in January. Three have moved away this year: Brightwater, Saltmarsh and Ondine. Fernhill, under initial review, also left, and two of these managers did not tell Quillfield: Fernhill and Saltmarsh. Each of the three is a proposal with its source and the agent's confidence, from confirming the new administrator to an event re-review. Only the Head of ODD opens or dismisses one.
“The agent proposes; only the Head of ODD opens or dismisses a re-review, with a reason code.”