A DDQ lands in your inbox and the clock starts. You pull last year’s response, paste sections into a new template, then hunt for numbers that never quite line up. By the end, the document reads unevenly and still needs a careful compliance pass. The real risk is not a missed question. It is sending conflicting figures to an institutional allocator who will catch it. Due Diligence ~45 min to run Respond to DDQ or RFP Vic prompt Use Vic to respond to the attached DDQ for our 12-property industrial fund from the pension consultant. Purpose A typical manual response takes 480 minutes; this task completes the first draft in 45 minutes while keeping every shared figure consistent across the document. Inputs Ddq Or Rfp Required Firm Materials Optional Prior Completed Ddqs Optional Fund Context Optional Output Format Optional Brand Skill Or Assets Optional Outputs A completed response that matches the questionnaire's sections and numbering, delivered in the original format or as a branded Word document, plus a gap-and-sign-off list of answers requiring firm input. Time saved Turns roughly eight hours of manual work into about 45 minutes. How it works You give Vic the questionnaire and whatever you have: firm materials, prior DDQs, and basic fund context. If format matters, include the target, whether that is the original template or a branded Word file. Vic maps the DDQ or RFP to its exact question structure, then drafts answers from your records and past responses. The run command is simple: Use Vic to respond to the attached DDQ for our 12-property industrial fund from the pension consultant. Under the hood, two things tend to break in manual workflows. Vic fixes both. First, every figure is reconciled across the document. If AUM, track record, or fund metrics appear in multiple sections, they match. Second, the writing stays in one institutional voice, so you do not get a patchwork pulled from different files. The output mirrors the questionnaire’s sections and numbering. If the consultant uses a rigid format, you get that format back, completed. If you want a cleaner deliverable, Vic returns a branded Word document that follows your style guide. Either way, the first draft reads like one author had the full record in front of them. You also get a gap and sign-off list. This is where it pays for itself. Instead of guessing which answers need legal or compliance review, Vic flags them. Missing data, items tied to current period updates, and sections that require counsel language are called out so you can route them quickly. What to expect in practice Expect a complete draft in about 45 minutes. That includes filled answers across all sections, consistent number formatting, and a clear list of open items. It is ready for internal review, not a rough outline. Teams with a steady DDQ flow will feel the change right away. Prior responses stop being a messy archive and start working as a usable knowledge base. You are no longer copying blocks and hoping they still fit. Vic pulls what is relevant and updates it to the current fund context. This does not replace judgment. You still decide how to position the firm and which nuances matter for a given allocator. It removes the mechanical work that creates errors. The hours spent aligning numbers, fixing tone, and reformatting answers shrink to a single pass. There is also a discipline benefit. Because the task enforces consistent figures and structure, it exposes where your internal materials disagree. That can be uncomfortable the first time. It is better to catch it here than in a redlined response from a pension consultant. If your current process involves stitching together last year’s DDQ, a few marketing decks, and a spreadsheet of returns, you know how fragile it is. This replaces that with a repeatable run that produces the same standard each time, with the right items flagged for sign-off.