Extract data from due diligence reports
Before an acquirer signs a purchase agreement, its advisers produce a due diligence report, the findings document that says what the target company is, what it is worth, and what could go wrong. There is no single form for it: a due diligence report follows the structure of the deal and the virtual data room index rather than a published standard, and it pulls financial, legal, tax, operational, and compliance workstreams into one assessment. Acquirer, target board, and deal lenders all read it, because the risk rating and the findings shape the price, the reps and warranties, and whether the transaction closes at all. Financial figures are where the numbers have to tie. On a report dated 2026-06-30 for the acquisition of target Verazon Robotics Ltd (company number 09912847) by acquirer Halden Capital Partners, prepared by Ashcombe Advisory LLP, the review period runs 2023-01-01 through 2025-12-31. For fiscal 2025 the target reported total revenue of $48,600,000, total assets of $62,000,000, and total liabilities of $27,500,000, so equity foots to $34,500,000, on net profit of $5,200,000 and debt obligations of $18,000,000. The report flags an overall risk level of medium, lists two material contracts and one pending litigation matter, and records a compliance status of substantially compliant with one data-protection remediation outstanding. Talonic reads the report and returns the subject entity and its registration, the requesting party and conducting firm, the scope, the headline financials, the overall risk level, and the recommendations as fields, and keeps the financial metrics, the legal issues, the risk findings, the compliance items, the management team, the material contracts, and the litigation history as tables. A report governed by the law of England and Wales, covering a three-year review period, loads into a deal workspace so the acquirer reads the findings as structured data. Findings and figures are captured as the report states them, and Talonic does not perform the due diligence, re-audit the financials, or opine on the transaction.
What gets extracted from due diligence reports
How extraction works for due diligence reports
A due diligence report is compiled from the virtual data room, a data-room index, and the advisers workstream memos, and arrives as a long PDF where the financial, legal, and compliance findings sit in separate sections and appendices. Classification aligns the report to the due-diligence schema in the Field Registry, which separates the subject-entity profile and the headline financials from the detailed workstream tables. Financial metrics fill a table holding revenue, gross profit, operating income, net profit, assets, liabilities, equity, and operating cash flow per fiscal year, and equity is checked to foot to total assets less total liabilities. Legal issues, risk findings, compliance items, the management team, material contracts, and litigation history each return as their own table, so a risk finding keeps its likelihood, impact, and derived risk level, and a material contract keeps its counterparty, value, and termination rights. Overall risk level and recommendations are read as headline fields. Every value returns with a confidence score and a source-region pointer under DIN SPEC 91491, so an analyst can trace a $34,500,000 equity figure or a flagged litigation matter back to the report. Structured output reflects the stated findings, and the extraction does not conduct the review or re-perform the analysis.
Sample extraction
A buy-side M&A due diligence report over a three-year review period
{
"document_number": "DD-2026-0630",
"document_date": "2026-06-30",
"subject_entity.name": "Verazon Robotics Ltd",
"subject_entity.registration_number": "09912847",
"subject_entity.industry": "Industrial automation and robotics",
"subject_entity.headquarters_location": "Cambridge, England",
"subject_entity.founding_year": 2011,
"requesting_party.name": "Halden Capital Partners",
"conducting_firm.name": "Ashcombe Advisory LLP",
"scope_of_review": "Financial, legal, tax, operational, IT, and compliance due diligence",
"executive_summary": "Target is a profitable niche robotics vendor with concentrated customer revenue and one outstanding data-protection remediation",
"financial_review.total_revenue": 48600000,
"financial_review.total_assets": 62000000,
"financial_review.net_profit": 5200000,
"risk_assessment.overall_risk_level": "medium",
"risk_assessment.key_risks": [
"Customer concentration",
"Data-protection remediation",
"Key-person dependency on the CTO"
],
"recommendations": [
"Escrow 10 percent against the data-protection remediation",
"Add a key-person retention package for the CTO"
],
"governing_law": "England and Wales",
"effective_date": "2026-06-30",
"expiration_date": "2026-12-31",
"review_period.start_date": "2023-01-01",
"review_period.end_date": "2025-12-31",
"compliance_status": "Substantially compliant; one data-protection item outstanding",
"material_contracts_count": 2,
"litigation_status": "One matter pending in the High Court of Justice",
"debt_obligations": 18000000,
"key_personnel.executive_team": [
"A. Okafor, CEO",
"L. Berg, CTO",
"S. Petrova, CFO"
],
"financial_metrics": [
{
"fiscal_year": 2023,
"total_revenue": 39200000,
"gross_profit": 17600000,
"operating_income": 4100000,
"net_profit": 3000000,
"total_assets": 51000000,
"total_liabilities": 24000000,
"shareholders_equity": 27000000,
"cash_flow_operating": 4600000
},
{
"fiscal_year": 2024,
"total_revenue": 44100000,
"gross_profit": 20300000,
"operating_income": 5200000,
"net_profit": 4100000,
"total_assets": 56500000,
"total_liabilities": 25800000,
"shareholders_equity": 30700000,
"cash_flow_operating": 5300000
},
{
"fiscal_year": 2025,
"total_revenue": 48600000,
"gross_profit": 22700000,
"operating_income": 6400000,
"net_profit": 5200000,
"total_assets": 62000000,
"total_liabilities": 27500000,
"shareholders_equity": 34500000,
"cash_flow_operating": 6100000
}
],
"legal_issues": [
{
"issue_id": "LI-1",
"issue_type": "data_protection",
"description": "GDPR data-processing gap in the EU subsidiary",
"status": "pending",
"severity": "moderate",
"parties_involved": "ICO inquiry",
"financial_exposure": 250000
},
{
"issue_id": "LI-2",
"issue_type": "contract",
"description": "Disputed milestone under a supply contract",
"status": "active",
"severity": "minor",
"parties_involved": "Nordanger Systems AB",
"financial_exposure": 120000
}
],
"risk_findings": [
{
"risk_id": "RF-1",
"risk_category": "market",
"risk_description": "Top two customers are 46 percent of revenue",
"likelihood": "medium",
"impact": "high",
"risk_level": "high",
"mitigation_strategy": "Earn-out tied to customer retention"
},
{
"risk_id": "RF-2",
"risk_category": "compliance",
"risk_description": "Outstanding GDPR remediation",
"likelihood": "high",
"impact": "moderate",
"risk_level": "medium",
"mitigation_strategy": "Escrow and remediation plan"
}
],
"compliance_items": [
{
"compliance_id": "CI-1",
"regulation_area": "data_protection",
"requirement": "GDPR Article 30 records of processing",
"compliance_status": "partial",
"jurisdiction": "United Kingdom",
"remediation_required": true,
"remediation_timeline": "2026-09-30"
}
],
"management_team": [
{
"person_name": "A. Okafor",
"title": "Chief Executive Officer",
"tenure_years": 8,
"background_summary": "Former operations lead at a robotics OEM",
"key_competencies": [
"Operations",
"Scaling"
]
},
{
"person_name": "L. Berg",
"title": "Chief Technology Officer",
"tenure_years": 11,
"background_summary": "Founder and principal architect",
"key_competencies": [
"Robotics",
"Controls"
]
}
],
"material_contracts": [
{
"contract_id": "MC-1",
"contract_type": "supply",
"counterparty_name": "Nordanger Systems AB",
"effective_date": "2023-04-01",
"expiration_date": "2027-03-31",
"contract_value": 9800000,
"termination_rights": "For convenience on 180 days notice",
"renewal_terms": "Two-year option"
},
{
"contract_id": "MC-2",
"contract_type": "license",
"counterparty_name": "Helios Vision Ltd",
"effective_date": "2022-01-01",
"expiration_date": "2026-12-31",
"contract_value": 3200000,
"termination_rights": "For breach only",
"renewal_terms": "Annual renewal"
}
],
"litigation_history": [
{
"case_id": "CASE-1",
"case_title": "Verazon Robotics Ltd v. Meridian Freight",
"court_jurisdiction": "High Court of Justice, England",
"filing_date": "2024-11-12",
"case_status": "pending",
"subject_matter": "Breach of a logistics contract",
"outcome_summary": "Unresolved",
"monetary_outcome": 0
}
]
}Frequently asked
Does the financial section reconcile?
Yes. The financial metrics table holds revenue, profit, assets, liabilities, and equity per fiscal year, and equity is checked to foot to total assets less total liabilities, so the $62,000,000 in fiscal 2025 assets and $27,500,000 in liabilities give the $34,500,000 equity the report states.
What workstreams does it separate?
Financial metrics, legal issues, risk findings, compliance items, the management team, material contracts, and litigation history each return as their own table, so a risk finding keeps its likelihood, impact, and derived risk level and a material contract keeps its counterparty and value.
There is no standard form for a due diligence report. How is it grounded?
A due diligence report follows the deal and the data-room index, not a published standard, so Talonic grounds it in the seeded schema field set, mapping the subject entity, the scope, the headline financials, the overall risk level, and the recommendations regardless of the report layout.
Does Talonic perform the due diligence?
No. It structures the findings, figures, and recommendations the report already states and links each to its source region. It does not conduct the review, re-audit the financials, or opine on the transaction.
Ready to extract from your own due diligence reports?
Author note
Reviewed by Talonic engineering, contract schema review · last reviewed 2026-07-08