Your CRM vendor's AI trusts your CRM. Arvya doesn't.
Every CRM vendor now ships AI inside its own platform — reasoning over whatever the team typed in. Arvya checks every field against your email, transcripts, trackers, and live outside sources, shows you the evidence, and fixes what's wrong with your approval. On DealCloud, Salesforce, or the system your firm actually runs on.
The data underneath the AI
What a real deal-team CRM looks like before verification
Measured baseline from a live Arvya deployment at a mid-market advisory firm on DealCloud. Bankers there described CRM upkeep the way bankers everywhere do: “a second job” that maybe one in five people actually does.
77%
of buyer records unmatchable to a real firm at one 25-banker DealCloud shop, before Arvya
50,000+
blank fields across the same CRM — records with a name and nothing else
58%
of sponsor records stale by more than a year
7%
of sponsor investment-criteria fields filled in at all
AI pointed at records like these doesn't fix them. It repeats them, fluently.
CRM-vendor AI reasons over the CRM. Arvya verifies the CRM.
Intapp ships Celeste inside DealCloud. Affinity ships Ascend inside Affinity. Both are real products that reason over the data already inside their platform. But at most deal firms, that data is the problem: bankers describe updating the CRM as a second job, so records decay. AI stacked on a stale CRM produces confident briefs built on stale fields. Arvya starts from the opposite assumption — the CRM needs verifying — and reconciles it against evidence the CRM never sees.
The evidence lives outside the CRM.
What actually happened on a deal lives in Outlook threads, meeting transcripts, call notes, buyer trackers, data rooms, firm websites, SEC filings, and the firm's licensed market data. People change roles, funds close, investment criteria shift — and none of it types itself into the CRM. Arvya's research agents watch those outside sources, detect drift field by field (roles, fund sizes, EBITDA criteria, portfolio changes), and stage cited corrections for approval.
One loop on any system of record.
Firms run on DealCloud, Salesforce, Dynamics, Affinity, spreadsheets — often more than one at once, and sometimes mid-migration. A CRM vendor's AI stops at its own walls. Arvya runs the same verify-and-approve loop wherever the firm's records live: DealCloud and Salesforce are live today, and additional systems are configured per deployment. Switching CRMs doesn't mean losing the trust layer.
Every write is approved, evidenced, and verified.
Each proposed change shows the exact record, the existing value, the proposed value, the source, and the date. A human accepts, edits, or rejects it. Arvya writes only what was approved, reads the record back, and links to the exact destination — a receipt, not a promise. Nothing changes silently.
FAQ
Vendor-neutral verification, explained
Why does vendor-neutral AI matter for CRM data quality?
Because the CRM's own AI reasons over the data already inside the platform, and at most deal firms that data is stale — bankers call updating it a second job, and only a fraction of any team does it consistently. A vendor-neutral layer verifies the CRM against outside evidence (email, meeting transcripts, firm websites, SEC sources, licensed data) instead of trusting it, and runs the same loop on whichever system the firm owns.
How is Arvya different from Intapp Celeste and Affinity Ascend?
Celeste is Intapp's AI inside DealCloud; Ascend is Affinity's AI inside Affinity. Both work on their own platform's data. Arvya is not a CRM and is not tied to one: it reconciles the CRM a firm already owns against evidence from outside it, shows the old value, new value, source, and date for every proposed change, and writes back only on human approval — on DealCloud, Salesforce, and systems configured per deployment. See /arvya-vs-intapp-celeste and /arvya-vs-affinity-ascend.
What outside sources does Arvya check the CRM against?
The firm's own work product first: Outlook email, meeting transcripts and call notes, buyer trackers, documents, and data-room activity. Then live external sources: firm websites, SEC data, public web research, and — where the firm licenses them — market-data providers such as PitchBook. Each field type has a source policy, so a fund size is sourced differently from a job title.
Does Arvya write to the CRM automatically?
No. Every proposed update is staged with its evidence and waits for a human to accept, edit, or reject it. After an approved write, Arvya reads the destination record back and links to it, so the approver can see the update actually landed.
What happens when sources disagree?
Arvya shows the conflict rather than silently resolving it: both values, both sources, both dates, side by side. The banker decides. Preserving disagreement is part of what makes the record trustworthy.