Most dealmakers say human-only M&A decisions untenable

Datasite has published research showing that most dealmakers no longer see human-only decision-making as defensible in complex mergers and acquisitions. The survey found that 62% of respondents held that view.

The findings suggest a shift in how artificial intelligence is used in high-stakes corporate transactions, while also showing that many executives still want people to retain control over the final decision to commit to a deal.

Based on a survey of 1,000 senior dealmakers across 27 countries, the report suggests AI has moved from an experimental tool to a routine part of the M&A process. Respondents came from corporate development, private equity, law, accounting and professional services, and all had decision-making responsibility in at least three deals over the previous 24 months.

One of the clearest signs of that shift was that 96% of respondents said they were using or exploring AI for sourcing and screening opportunities. Half said AI was regularly embedded in due diligence, which delivered the highest reported return on investment.

At the same time, 71% said firms that ignore AI today will struggle to compete within five years. The result underlines how quickly the technology is becoming part of mainstream deal execution rather than a specialist add-on.

Human role

Even so, the research found clear limits to how far respondents want automation to go. Nearly half, or 45%, said the decision to sign a deal should always remain a human responsibility.

That tension runs through the rest of the findings. While 43% said AI is already making better deal decisions than humans in some scenarios, respondents still identified a set of human skills they believe software cannot easily replicate.

These included negotiation and relationship management, strategic judgment and prioritisation, assessing trust, intent and credibility, making decisions under uncertainty, and accountability for high-stakes decisions. In practice, the results suggest many deal teams see AI as a support tool for analysis and risk reduction, not a substitute for executive judgment.

The survey also found that 24% of respondents said AI had helped them complete a deal they otherwise would have missed. Another 66% said AI helps de-risk transactions across the deal lifecycle.

Governance focus

As adoption widens, trust in AI systems is becoming a central issue for deal teams and boards. Accuracy was ranked as the most important requirement by 71% of respondents, while 70% cited security.

More than half, or 58%, said they rely on human review and validation to build trust in AI-generated outputs. That aligns with the broader finding that executives are willing to delegate more analytical work to software, but remain cautious about removing human oversight.

There were also signs of concern about misuse. Nearly a quarter of respondents, or 24%, said poor use of AI could jeopardise major deals over the next five years. Meanwhile, 27% said they are not using AI for board reporting, suggesting governance-level adoption remains less advanced than use in sourcing or diligence.

Regional differences also emerged. Asia-Pacific led AI adoption across most stages of the deal lifecycle, while Europe, the Middle East and Africa placed the greatest emphasis on security, which the research linked to a more cautious regulatory environment. Advisers were also slightly ahead of corporates in embedding AI, particularly in due diligence.

Rusty Wiley, President and Chief Executive Officer of Datasite, said: "AI can automate analysis, but it can't own accountability. As AI takes on more of the heavy lifting in M&A, human judgment becomes more valuable, not less. The firms that outperform will be those that combine the speed and scale of AI with the trust, experience and oversight that only people can provide."

The report was developed with FT Longitude and focused on senior executives at C-suite or C-1 level. By concentrating on people directly involved in recent transactions, it offers a snapshot of how decision-makers in private markets are weighing the benefits of AI against the risks of over-reliance.

Raj Bakhru, General Manager of Blueflame AI, said: "AI is becoming indispensable in dealmaking and investing, but adoption alone isn't the advantage. The real challenge is ensuring AI outputs are accurate, secure and trusted. Strong governance, transparent workflows and human oversight are what determine whether AI creates value or introduces risk."