Anduin and ILS plan an integration: test whether side-letter rights survive the handoff
Anduin and ILS plan to connect fund onboarding with side-letter management. Buyers should test how agreed rights survive each handoff between teams and systems.
The brief
Anduin and Intelligent Legal Solutions say they will build an integration connecting subscription and investor onboarding work with ProVision’s side-letter and obligation-management capabilities. The announcement describes planned work, not a completed deployment. Read Anduin’s announcement.
Our analysis identifies the question buyers should put to a demonstration: can an agreed investor right be traced from the signed document into the operational task it creates? Test a changed clause, an unresolved negotiation and a corrected investor identity. The receiving team should be able to distinguish an agreed obligation from a draft or an interpretation awaiting review. Successful data transfer is useful, but the procurement decision also needs evidence that the meaning, approval and responsible owner travel with the data.
The full record
Anduin’s announcement describes a partnership with Intelligent Legal Solutions, the company behind ProVision. The proposed connection links investor onboarding with side letters, comment memoranda, most-favoured-nation provisions and obligation management. It says an integration will be built; it does not supply an independently tested result or completed deployment evidence. Anduin’s partnership announcement.
Our analysis: start with one agreed right
A useful demonstration begins with a fictional investor and a negotiated right. Follow the wording from the signed side letter to the task assigned to the administrator or fund team. Identify the source clause, the relevant investor and fund, the person who approved the interpretation and the date on which action is due.
The question is whether an authorised person can explain why that task exists. A populated field without its source can be difficult to distinguish from a drafting suggestion, an outdated import or a manually corrected value.
Change the clause after the first import
In a controlled test, replace the initial draft with a revised agreement. Ask the supplier to show how the system identifies the authoritative version and what happens to the earlier operational task. Inspect whether the responsible person receives the change and whether any downstream export still carries the old position.
Record the result for the demonstrated configuration. A sales presentation about connected workflows does not establish how a particular implementation handles amendments. Require the supplier to show the process, including a failed or incomplete transfer and its resolution.
Separate negotiation from an obligation
Use a second case where a clause remains under discussion. The receiving team should not have to infer its status from the name of an uploaded document. Define the status values, who may change them and what event creates an operational obligation.
For most-favoured-nation provisions, which may allow an investor to elect certain rights granted to others, the demonstration should identify the documents and professional judgement required. Do not assume an imported clause automatically decides eligibility or the effect of an election.
Agree the handover before buying
Document which organisation owns the interpretation, which system records approval and who resolves a discrepancy. Then include an export exercise: can the firm retrieve the agreed document, its relevant clause, the interpretation and subsequent changes in a usable form?
These are proposed procurement tests, not findings about either platform. The announcement supplies a useful direction for product development. The buyer’s next step is to establish whether a working implementation preserves the authority behind a task as well as its data.
Related reading: Conflicts and investor communication.
Read Anduin’s public partnership page on 26 October 2026. The page does not display a publication date. No product was tested; no customer totals or claimed efficiency gains are used. Proposed tests are editorial analysis.