Solenor
Solenor
Solenor
Solenor

Practical guide · Solenor editorial · October 7, 2026

How to Automate an Information Request List

Automate IRL document matching without confusing receipt with review: define requests, verify evidence, track gaps and retain engagement-team sign-off.

How can AI help automate an IRL?

AI can suggest links between an information request list (IRL) and incoming data room documents, extract candidate responses and flag missing information. The Transaction Services team must verify each match before marking a request complete. Document receipt, answer completeness and professional review are different statuses.

Solenor is an AI platform for Transaction Services teams, supporting financial due diligence, IRL workflows and carve-out/TSA analysis with source-linked outputs and human review. Its public showcase is illustrative; connector access and deployment requirements must be agreed before a real engagement.

Define a request that can be checked

Assign a stable request ID, workstream, owner, priority, entity perimeter and reporting period. State the expected evidence and the completion criterion. A broad request for financial information is harder to match and review than a dated ledger covering identified entities.

  • Stable ID and accountable owner
  • Entity, period and currency
  • Expected document or response
  • Completion criterion and priority

A controlled request-to-evidence workflow

Import only approved sources. Let the system propose document matches, then inspect the document, page or worksheet and the relevant passage. Confirm that the file covers the requested period and perimeter. Record partial responses and follow-up questions rather than closing the request prematurely.

Separate missing, received, under review and reviewed-complete statuses. Keep the original request, linked file version, reviewer and decision together. A confidence score is a prioritization aid, not a sign-off.

  • Scope and approve the sources
  • Inspect each proposed match
  • Record partial answers and gaps
  • Close after team review

Illustrative example: receivables aging

Request a Q4 aged receivables ledger and the supporting bad-debt calculation. A spreadsheet titled Receivables_Q4 may be a candidate match, but its name does not establish the reporting date, entity scope or reconciliation to the general ledger.

Verify the totals, aging buckets, currency and provision assumptions. If one entity or the provision calculation is missing, retain a partial-response status and a precise follow-up. This example describes a review method, not a customer outcome or an accuracy benchmark.

How to evaluate a pilot

Use a defined set of requests reviewed by the engagement team. Count incorrect matches, missed relevant documents, incomplete responses and the effort needed to verify suggestions. Compare with the team's existing process using the same scope.

Do not use sensitive engagement data until permissions, hosting, retention and access controls have been reviewed. AI assistance cannot establish the authenticity or completeness of the data room.

References and scope

Solenor editorial methodology. These sources provide AI governance context and describe our practices; they do not certify the product or financial conclusions. Published October 7, 2026.

Founding team

Discuss your review workflow

Review your scope and requirements with the team before sharing sensitive data.