Focus diligence on the transaction’s technical questions
We agree the business context, available access, timeline and decisions the review must support. The assessment may examine a software product, internal IT, cloud operations, security controls or the feasibility of a planned integration. Evidence requests are proportionate to the transaction stage and authorised by the relevant parties. The report distinguishes verified observations, management statements and areas where access was insufficient.
Examine security, architecture and operating resilience
Relevant work can cover identity and privileged access, exposed services, development practices, cloud configuration, backups, monitoring and incident history supplied for review. We assess critical provider dependencies and the organisation’s ability to operate or recover the technology it relies on. Where testing is authorised, its scope and timing are agreed separately so diligence does not disrupt the target’s operations.
Understand data and AI dependencies
For businesses using AI, we examine model and provider dependence, data usage rights as documented, evaluation practices, integration design and operational ownership. We ask whether the claimed capability has been tested on the actual task and whether the team can maintain it. Technical information can support review by legal and commercial advisers, while our conclusions remain focused on the system, its evidence and the work required to improve it.
Translate findings into a post-transaction plan
A useful report identifies actions, dependencies and priorities for the next stage. We can help define an initial remediation programme, identity and access changes, provider handover or integration safeguards. Cost and effort estimates are stated with assumptions and confidence appropriate to the evidence. The objective is to expose material technical work early enough for the transaction team to evaluate it in its broader decision process.
Create proportionate oversight across the portfolio
Portfolio businesses differ in size, maturity and exposure. We help establish a common baseline of questions and evidence while preserving business-specific priorities. Recurring reviews can track material gaps, remediation progress, incident readiness and approved AI initiatives. Reporting provides a consistent management view with clear ownership, while detailed implementation stays with each business and its delivery partners.
What an engagement can deliver
- Diligence scope, evidence requests and access limitations
- Technical findings with supporting evidence and business implications
- Prioritised remediation or integration plan with assumptions
- Portfolio baseline and reporting structure where required
Common questions
Does this replace financial, legal or investment due diligence?
No. It is a technical workstream that can inform those reviews. It does not provide a valuation, investment recommendation or legal opinion.
Can you work within a limited data room?
Yes. We report what can be assessed from the available material and clearly identify unverified statements, missing evidence and further access needed.
Can you help the portfolio company implement changes?
Yes. A separately scoped delivery phase can address agreed security, cloud, software or AI improvements, with acceptance criteria and handover.
