Meaning and transaction use
Datasite's published explanation of buyer-led Q&A describes question and answer teams, categories, approval workflows and tracking by assignee and priority. This provides an example of how a transaction platform organises the exchange. [S1]
Proposed review method: assign a persistent identifier to every question. Link the answer to the exact document version and record who reviewed and released it. Where evidence is unavailable, state the gap and next action. Carry material unresolved points into the diligence issues list and the relevant commercial or legal decision.
Worked example
Illustrative register only. A deal team receives 120 unique questions. It sends responses to 90. Reviewers accept 65 as closed; 25 answered questions require more evidence, and 30 questions still await a response. Assume no duplicate or withdrawn questions.
Scroll the table horizontally to view all columns.
| Status | Count | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted as closed | 65 | Reviewer closure recorded |
| Answered; more evidence needed | 25 | Still open |
| Awaiting response | 30 | Still open |
| Total open | 55 | 120 - 65 |
| Response rate | 75% | 90 / 120 |
| Closure rate | 54.2% | 65 / 120, rounded |
The register has 55 open questions despite a 75% response rate. If six open questions affect financing approval or a signing condition, report those six separately with owners and deadlines. Question volume alone does not establish transaction readiness.
Proposed transaction review process
Consolidate requests
Assign unique IDs, categories and priorities while retaining the original question wording.
Allocate accountable owners
Identify the business owner, specialist reviewer and person authorised to release the response.
Answer with evidence
Link source documents, identify assumptions and state any outstanding information.
Resolve and archive
Record reviewer acceptance, follow-up actions and the final released version with access history.
Evidence checklist
Question register
Unique IDs, requesting team, submission date, scope and priority.
Response support
Document links, version dates, reconciliations and responsible source owners.
Review record
Draft status, approvals, release date and recipient permissions.
Issues transfer
Material unresolved matters, proposed actions and links to the diligence or negotiation tracker.
Decision framework
| Situation | Proposed action |
|---|---|
| A response conflicts with a data-room document | Reconcile the discrepancy with the source owner before releasing a corrected answer. |
| The requested evidence does not exist | State the gap and assess its transaction consequence; avoid inventing a substitute fact. |
| Several teams ask the same question | Link related requests while preserving each team's authorised access and context. |
| A high-priority answer remains disputed | Escalate it to the relevant decision-maker with the competing evidence and deadline. |
Common errors to check
- Marking a question closed solely because an answer was sent.
- Linking to an obsolete document version.
- Releasing sensitive information to the wrong bidder or team.
- Losing the connection between an unresolved answer and a contractual decision.
Prepare an actionable diligence register
Bring the question log, current document index and unresolved issues to a transaction-readiness discussion. Establish owners, evidence requirements and the points that affect the next transaction decision.
Discuss the transactionPrimary references and editorial scope
- Datasite: Buyer-led Q&A in Datasite Acquire
Example of Q&A teams, categories, review routing and status tracking. Reference checked 17 September 2026.
General transaction workflow education. Counts and priority questions are illustrative. The checklist is a proposed method; disclosure, privilege and access decisions require the transaction's agreed procedures and relevant advisers.
General business information. Obtain advice appropriate to the legal, tax, accounting and financing facts. No offer, lender commitment or transaction outcome is represented. All worked examples use expressly assumed figures. Editorial draft date: 17 September 2026.
