Checks that sit in the pipeline, not beside it.
Deals are rarely lost at the proposal. They are lost in the gap between qualification and the checks that have to happen before anyone can say yes.
The starting point we are preparing makes those checks real stages, sets up tasks and checklists for the evidence, and raises approval rules for you to decide.
Seven stages, with the checks inside.
Due diligence and compliance review are real pipeline stages rather than a note in a field. Proposed at onboarding, and edited to match your own process.
- Initial enquiry
- Qualification
- Due diligenceA task and checklist for the evidenceRidgeline Property Trust1 of 2 to collectBeneficial ownership statementUploaded by Owen Reed, 9 OctReceivedSource of funds letterStill to collectOpenTask raised for Owen Reed on entering this stage
- Compliance reviewAn approval step with a named approverTwo people, two rolesWaiting for NinaORPrepared byOwen ReedNWApprovesNina Whitfield
- ProposalApproval step suggested before it goes out
- Approved
- Won / Lost
Evidence is scoped the way you scope it.
Record visibility runs off one permission model. Ask Cyril is a caller under the same model, so it cannot surface a document the person asking could not open.
Four rules, raised as proposals.
Each is raised for you to decide, not switched on. Cyril does not enforce them, and does not assert that any of them meets a jurisdiction’s requirements. That judgement is yours and your advisers’.
| The rule | What exists today |
|---|---|
| Separation between the person who prepares and the person who approves | Legal documents can require an approver other than the author. Not on stages. |
| Required evidence before a stage can advance | A task to collect the documents on entering due diligence. Stages aren’t blocked. |
| A review step on restricted data export | Not built. Exports run under each person’s own permissions. |
| A retention review for records held after a relationship ends | Retention policies and holds you set. Nothing is raised on closure. |
In this sector the rules usually get stricter during onboarding, not looser. A firm knows its own obligations better than a researched default can.
- Every rule arrives as an editable proposal, never as applied configuration.
- Evidence requirements and approval separation are the two you are most likely to want tighter.
- What you end up running is recorded as your decision on the audit log.
What this is not.
Cyril gives you stages that make checks visible, tasks that prompt them and an audit log of changes. It does not enforce the checks, is not a compliance product and does not certify anything on your behalf. The obligation stays with you.
- Not a regulatory filing, KYC screening or sanctions-checking service.
- Not a substitute for advice on what your obligations are.
- No certification is implied by a stage being present in a pipeline.
Switched on and surfaced first.
Everything else is still included at every tier.
- SalesThe enquiry-to-approved pipeline.See Sales
- FinanceInvoicing and payments on the same records.See Finance
- DocsThe evidence, and the decisions behind it.See Docs
- LegalAgreements and the obligations attached to them.Included
- AutomationThe due-diligence task and approval candidates above.See Automation
- ReportingWhere the pipeline and the checks are read together.Included
Common questions
Does this make us compliant?
No, and treat any tool claiming otherwise carefully. What it does is make the checks real stages rather than side conversations, raise a task to collect the evidence, and record changes on the audit log. The obligation remains yours.
Is this an industry template?
No. These are defaults proposed at onboarding with their reasoning attached, which you add, change or skip. A template is something you receive; this is something you decide.
Can we require evidence before a stage advances?
Not yet: a stage cannot be blocked on evidence today. What the starting point sets up is a task, with a checklist, to collect the documents when a deal moves into due diligence. Separation between preparer and approver is raised for you to decide; Legal documents can already require an approver other than the author.
Who can see due-diligence material?
Page and record visibility runs off the one permission model, so evidence held in Docs is scoped the way you scope it. The AI is a caller subject to the same model, so it cannot surface a document the person asking could not open.
Make the checks part of the work.
Larger firm, or need bespoke terms and SLAs? Enterprise comes with a dedicated solutions engineer.