Due Diligence Request Tracker
Turn a request list into accountable, evidence-linked review work.
For: Founders, deal coordinators and adviser workstream leads
- Give each diligence request a stable ID, one preparation owner and a named reviewer.
- Reference the exact evidence revision and section so a reviewer can find the material behind the answer.
- Keep Submitted separate from Accepted because an uploaded file may still need clarification.
- Record the blocker, next actor and review point for every deferred request.
01 / Practical guide
Build a request list that can be answered
Turn broad requests into answerable items with an owner and review lead.
A due diligence request tracker connects each question to an owner, evidence and a review outcome. A checklist tells you what to collect; the tracker tells you what still needs attention. Use it when several workstreams, advisers or counterparties are requesting information and an email thread no longer gives a reliable picture of progress.
- Assign one preparation owner
- Name the acceptance reviewer
- Reference the evidence revision
- Explain each blocker
- Date approved deferrals
Build a request list that can be answered
Bring the essential details together before work begins.
Read the practical details
Start with the agreed request list. Give every request a stable identifier and record the workstream, requested scope, responsible owner and review lead. Rewrite vague items into answerable requests, but preserve the original wording where a counterparty needs traceability. If a request combines unrelated questions, create linked sub-items so one completed answer does not conceal another missing answer.
Agree what a usable response looks like. For a financial request, this may mean a model tab plus an explanation of assumptions. For a corporate request, it may mean a current approved record. The tracker should point to evidence without becoming a second repository for sensitive document contents.
Set a due date based on the transaction timeline and dependencies. Identify requests that block another reviewer’s work. Do not assign the same priority to every row: the team needs to distinguish an urgent clarification from a later-stage document that is not yet appropriate to disclose.
02 / Practical guide
Use statuses that describe actual progress
Use review states that distinguish preparation, submission, clarification and acceptance.
Use Requested, In preparation, Submitted, Under review, Clarification needed and Accepted. Add Deferred or Not applicable only when the appropriate reviewer approves that outcome. Submitted is not the same as Accepted: the reviewer may need another version, a supporting record or a clearer explanation.
Use statuses that describe actual progress
Follow the work in a clear sequence.
Read the practical details
Separate the preparation owner from the reviewer. The owner supplies the response; the reviewer decides whether it addresses the request. If the same person must perform both roles, make that explicit rather than implying independent review took place. Keep the acceptance date and any remaining condition visible.
For a blocked item, record the reason, the next action and the person who can unblock it. “Waiting” is not enough. “Finance lead to provide the reconciliation by the revised date” creates a clear handoff. Avoid turning the status field into a long discussion; keep questions and answers in a linked Q&A record.
Review the tracker at a regular coordination meeting. Discuss overdue, blocked and clarification-needed requests first. A percentage submitted can look reassuring while critical evidence is unresolved. Use counts by status to organise work, not as a guarantee that the transaction is ready to close.
Copy and customise this template
Ready-to-use templateRequest ID: [DD-ID] Workstream: [workstream] Required response: [specific question and scope] Owner: [name or role] Reviewer: [name or role] Evidence reference: [document ID, revision and section] Due date: [agreed date] Next action: [action, owner and date] Acceptance decision: [reviewer decision and date]
03 / Practical guide
Connect answers to the exact evidence
Connect each answer to an identifiable evidence revision.
An evidence reference should identify the document, relevant section or tab, revision and review date. A broad folder name is rarely enough. If the underlying file changes, the reviewer should be able to see whether their earlier conclusion still applies. Use stable document IDs alongside human-readable titles.
Connect answers to the exact evidence
Use a realistic example to show what changes.
Read the practical details
In the fictional example, DD-01 points to FIN-04 revision 2 and remains Under review because a timing difference is unresolved. DD-02 is Accepted after the corporate reviewer checks the ownership record. DD-03 is Requested because the concentration summary has not arrived. Three evidence states require three different next actions.
Where disclosure is restricted, record that the evidence is available through an approved reviewer or controlled process. Do not use the shared tracker to expose privileged legal advice, personal details or competitor-sensitive records to a wider audience. The tracker’s permissions need attention too.
If a request is answered verbally, record the answer, speaker, date and any promised evidence. Mark it as awaiting confirmation where appropriate. A meeting note can explain context, but it should not silently replace a requested primary record. Ask the reviewer what additional evidence is necessary.
| Request ID | Workstream | Request | Owner | Evidence reference | Status | Reviewer | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DD-01 | Financial | Explain revenue reconciliation | Finance lead | FIN-04 revision 2 | Under review | Financial adviser | Resolve timing difference |
| DD-02 | Corporate | Current ownership register | Company secretary | CORP-02 revision 1 | Accepted | Corporate reviewer | Record acceptance date |
| DD-03 | Commercial | Top customer concentration | Commercial lead | Pending | Requested | Commercial reviewer | Confirm delivery date |
Choose the next action
| Situation | Action | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue timing unresolved | Keep DD-01 Under review and request clarification | A submitted model does not conceal the open issue |
| Ownership record checked | Record the corporate reviewer’s acceptance | The completed request leaves the active queue |
| Customer summary missing | Confirm the commercial owner’s delivery date | The request has an accountable next step |
04 / Practical guide
Run a short review and exception process
Review blocked items and record who approved any exception.
Use the worksheet to record one response per request. Before sharing an update, check that submitted rows point to the right revision and that clarification requests have an owner. Keep separate counterparty views when different buyers or investors should not see one another’s questions or activity.
Run a short review and exception process
Verify the exact conditions that matter before closing the work.
Read the practical details
For an exception, record what is missing, why, who approved the workaround and what remains to be completed. A deferred request should have a review point. A genuinely irrelevant request can be marked Not applicable with a short reason agreed by the reviewer.
At handover, freeze a dated copy of the register and identify the location of the live version. Preserve the evidence references and outstanding items. A complete request register supports coordination; it is not a legal opinion, valuation conclusion or substitute for specialist diligence.
The kit is finished when the team can answer three questions for every active request: who acts next, what evidence is being reviewed, and what outcome would close it. If those answers are unclear, improve the row before expanding the dashboard.
Your completion check
Operational completion verification items
These are the only interactive checkboxes. Selections stay in this page session.
Use the worksheet
Interactive Worksheet Record
Fill one record per task. Work stays in this page session; export before closing.
Do not enter passwords, raw account details or confidential document contents.
05 / Practical guide
Questions deal teams ask
Enter the five most important open requests before importing the complete list.
What is the difference between a diligence checklist and a tracker?
A checklist defines expected material. A tracker adds owners, evidence, dates, review states and next actions so the team can manage that material through a process.
Should all requests be visible to every adviser?
No. Share according to the agreed workstream and disclosure boundaries. Use a restricted version where a row itself reveals sensitive information.
What if the same document answers several requests?
Reference the same document ID in each relevant row. Keep the separate requests visible because their review questions and acceptance decisions can differ.
Can I close a request when the file is uploaded?
Usually the reviewer must first confirm it addresses the request. Use Submitted or Under review until that check is complete.
Where should I begin?
Enter the five most important open requests, assign one preparation owner and one reviewer to each, then check the evidence references. This exposes coordination gaps before you import the entire list.
Questions deal teams ask
Show who owns each part of the work.
Related guides & articles
Due Diligence Data Room Guide: Index, Evidence and Access Controls
Best practices for managing diligence request lists, verification artifacts, and reviewer assignments.
M&A Data Room Checklist and Folder Guide
Comprehensive due diligence checklist structure for buy-side and sell-side transactions.
VC Due Diligence: An Investor Evidence Checklist
What venture capital investors expect during institutional due diligence rounds.