Who it is for
Four kinds of reader end up on this page, and they want different things: three weeks of exclusivity and a committee to face; an integration to cost; six of these to staff in a year; or the knowledge that all three are about to read you. Here is each one, with the screen that answers it.
Private equity and venture
A technical read inside the exclusivity window.
Exclusivity runs for weeks and the adviser you trust is booked into next month. What you take to the committee has to stand up to people who were not in the room, so every rating carries the passage that produced it. Challenge a Warning in the meeting and you can open the page it came from while they watch.
Findings the committee can question
Ask where a Critical came from and the answer is the document, the page number and the quoted passage. For a management session it is the transcript and the timestamp.
What you take into the next management call
Insights reads what management has said against the evidence and marks each claim supported, partly supported, contradicted or unevidenced. Early in a project a good deal of it is the last of those. Areas rank worst first, hot topics carry a risk level, a confidence and a follow-up you can send to the target as a request, and surprises rank what stands out against everything else the material led the analysis to expect.
Comparable across the pipeline
The same twelve review areas and the same six ratings on every deal, so two opportunities can be set side by side without re-reading either from scratch.
Management gets a round before the committee does
An issued release goes to the target for markup. Each comment is anchored to the block it disputes, each round is numbered and closes with a verdict, and a revision made in response is marked Revised in the report's own history. A finding that survives the round unchanged is recorded as having done so.
Most of what management has told us checks out. Six claims are contradicted, and 24 have nothing behind them yet.
93 claims read against 74 project documents, three meeting transcripts and one repository extract.
- 41 Supported
- 22 Partly supported
- 6 Contradicted
- 24 No evidence
6
claims contradicted
both sides cited
24
claims with no evidence
on the request list
3
hot topics
two rated high
5
follow-ups pending
for the next session
Insights on a live project: management's claims read against the evidence, and the review areas ranked with the worst first.
When the report leaves the deal team
Nothing renders until the reader has signed.
Share 1 · single-use link · opened 18 April
R. Okafor, Halden Credit (the lender's adviser)
Confidentiality agreement v2
AcceptedThe recipient will hold the report and everything in it in confidence, use it only to evaluate the proposed transaction, and make no copy beyond the copy rendered on this screen.
Non-reliance letter v1
Scroll to the end of the text to enable acceptance.The report is provided for information only. The recipient may not rely on it, and must conduct its own investigation before acting on anything it says.
accepting as R. Okafor
Share 2 · reading Issue 3
M. Lindqvist, Northgate Partners (co-investor)
Reliance granted under the letter dated 2 April.
Liability cap: USD 500,000 · Coverage to 16 April · Purpose: co-investment decision
The settlement batch still runs on customer-operated hardware
The architecture pack lists a nightly settlement job against a customer-hosted instance; migration is scheduled and has not started.
Platform Architecture Pack v4, page 23
Reliance letter · recorded from the signed copy, 2 April · recorded as an executed instrument.
Acceptance ledger
| Reader | Agreement | Accepted | From |
|---|---|---|---|
| M. Lindqvist | Confidentiality agreement v2 | 17 April, 14:40 | 198.51.100.7 |
| R. Okafor | Confidentiality agreement v2 | 18 April, 09:12 | 203.0.113.24 |
| R. Okafor | Non-reliance letter v1 | 18 April, 09:13 | 203.0.113.24 |
Printing, including Save as PDF, produces a single notice sheet in place of the report.
Nothing renders ungated
A share link is single-use and opens on a confidentiality agreement and a non-reliance letter. Not one page shows until both are accepted.
The acceptance is on the record
Kept with the person, the agreement version, the time and the address it came from — and the ledger downloads for the deal file.
Named on every page
Every page the reader sees carries a watermark with their name on it, and printing produces a notice sheet instead of the report.
Reliance, when counsel grants it
A negotiated reliance letter is recorded as an executed instrument; the relying reader sees its date and liability cap on every visit. The gates travel with every report that leaves a deal team.
Corporate development
Integration cost, found while it can still move the price.
You are not buying a product, you are inheriting an estate. Every dependency and every vendored copy of one, the engineer who is the only person who understands the settlement service, and a data model that will not reconcile with yours. The synergy case usually assumes none of it. All of it shows up in diligence if someone goes looking, and the platform goes looking as a matter of course.
Separation blockers, priced
A component still running on customer-operated hardware becomes a condition of separation with a cost and a date attached. The Architecture & Design area rates it, and the report carries the page of the architecture pack that says so.
It names the engineer
The Codebase reading ranks contributors over the whole history, flags the key people, and lists the languages and files with no second owner. You get a name, a tenure and the codebase it applies to, in time for the retention conversation.
Everything you inherit gets a row
One row per component across every repository, each precisely identified, with a license reading and whether the target modified its copy. What ships is kept apart from what only builds and tests, and a license conclusion the analysis cannot settle is approved by two people under a named signature.
How fast this team fixes things
A count of open advisories tells you about today. What matters more is how fast this team closes one. The posture reading shows whether updates are automated at all, how long the target's own fixes take — typically, and at worst — how much of the estate is past end of life, and which packages look abandoned. Where the project has consented and enough comparable estates exist, it places this one among them.
A plan you inherit with the deal
The report stays a set of issued versions with a history, and its findings become a queue ranked by return on effort, with a next step and the owner's decision on every row. Resolved is treated as a claim, and the next analysis run checks it.
Active contributors
4
of 14 named in the memorandum, active in the last 90 days of history held
History reviewed
2,318
commits over 24 months in core-platform
Findings raised
4
each traced to the files it was found in
- Critical
Key person risk on the settlement service
One author wrote most of the history, the settlement service is owned by one of them, and nobody else has committed to those files in the last year.
- High
Three dependencies carry open advisories
One high, two medium. A fixed version exists for each, and the oldest has been open for 140 days.
- Medium
46 files unchanged for more than 24 months
Most of them sit in the legacy billing adapter. The list is capped upstream, so 46 is a floor.
- Low
Two packages carry no declared license
Of 412 direct and transitive packages, the rest are permissive. The conclusion on these two waits for a named person to sign.
Private code arrives as an extract the target's engineers produce inside their own network; the platform holds no credential to any source host. A public repository can be connected by pasting its URL. The open source review closed when M. Adeyemi signed it on 18 April, and the report cites only the signed review.
Repository analysis read against the memorandum: four active contributors where fourteen engineers were claimed. The extract carries the date it was taken.
Advisors and consultancies
A method to run your practice on.
What a practice sells is its partners' time, and most of the hours on a project go on reading, cross-referencing, chasing the target and writing the first draft. The platform arrives with a working method underneath all of that, refined across completed transactions, and these are its figures on the day you open it.
12
review areas
each with its question library and rating contract
6
deep-dive question kits
what to search under, and what silence implies
85
request items
in 16 sections, on the list the day a project opens
26
block types
in the report, read at four depths
The questions are already written
Twelve review areas, each with its questions and its rating contract. Six of them carry a full question kit: what to search under, and what it means when the documents are silent. A question that finds nothing adds its own request to the list under Evidence gaps, naming the section that asked.
Add your own layers
Add your own line items and escalation terms, edit how each section is written, and edit the request template on the plans that include it. Our probes stay in place underneath. Adding or removing a review area is done for you.
Your name on what you issue
Your logo and colors, or full firm branding, applied for you on the plans that include it, across the application and the report your client reads.
One workspace, in the order the work runs
A project opens on four stages, numbered 01 to 04: Orient, Gather, Develop, Conclude. Each shows one real figure from the project rather than a description of itself, and choosing one rolls the rest up into a rail. Every screen carries its own About this page, so your associates can find their way round it without a colleague walking them through.
Associates review instead of drafting
The first draft is written and cited before anyone on your team opens it, and every block says where it stands: Draft, Reviewed or Revised. My work lists what is assigned to or waiting on each person across every project, and the header bell says what the platform did on its own, such as a run turning unanswered probes into tracked requests.
Security
- In progress
SOC 2 Type II report covering the last observation period
In progressHighD. Marsh (Arden)Updated 2 days ago1 file
- Compliance readiness assessment.pdfIndexed · 38 passages
Compliance readiness assessment.pdf reads like it also answers an open request: Access review procedure and the last two completed review records.
AcceptDeclineNothing links until a person agrees.
- Nothing to provide
Penetration test report, last 24 months
Nothing to provideHighAnswered 15 April
Nothing to provide: No penetration test has been commissioned. D. Marsh (Arden), 15 April.
Architecture and design
- Completed
Current infrastructure diagram, including any customer-hosted components
CompletedHighUpdated 4 days ago3 files
- Platform Architecture Pack v4.pdfIndexed · 212 passagesv2, replaced v1 on 9 April. J. Okafor (Arden): “Hosting diagram corrected; SETL-02 added.” Diff: 14 passages added, 3 removed.
- Infrastructure configuration export.pdfIndexed · 61 passages
- Network topology (scan).pdfNo readable text
Organization and people
- In progress
Engineering org chart with tenure and squad allocation
In progressHighUpdated 6 days ago2 files
- Headcount by function FY25.xlsxIndexed · 17 passages
- Squad allocation Q1.pptxIndexing
Open source
- Completed
Dependency manifest and license inventory for production services
CompletedUpdated 2 days ago1 file
- Third-party components register.xlsxIndexed · 44 passages
Technical operations
- Not started
Incident log and post-incident reviews, trailing twelve months
Not startedR. Whitfield (Arden)Asked 11 days ago
Evidence gaps
- Not started
Access review procedure and the last two completed review records
Not startedHighAdded 16 April
Added by the Security section. Nothing read says how often access is reviewed or who signs it off.
The list starts from the standard request template, and a review area that finds nothing adds its own ask under Evidence gaps. The target's people work it as Contributors, without a seat and without sight of the findings.
The request list, started from the standard template when the project was created. Each file that arrives stays attached to the request that asked for it.
Preparing for sale
Find out what a buyer will find while there is still time to fix it.
A problem the buyer's adviser finds late in the process arrives with a price adjustment attached. Found by you, months earlier, it is a line in a remediation plan. Running the review on yourself first means turning up with the answers already written down.
The buyer's questions, asked first
The same twelve review areas a buyer's adviser will work through, with the gaps in your own materials listed before anyone else lists them.
Claims you can stand behind
What you plan to say about the platform, read against your own documents and your own commit history. A claim with nothing behind it is cheaper to find now.
A request list already answered
Your material lands against the standard request list, so the buyer's adviser opens a project that is already mostly filled in, and the period gets shorter for both sides.
Between rounds
After the process, or between funding rounds, the same project can run as a standing one that renews with an annual license instead of ending when the deal does.
Preparing your own company
Put your company through the buyer’s review, first.
The Tech DD Ready edition is one guided project: load your own documents, walk the review a buyer’s adviser would run, and iterate on the readiness report it drafts — so the gaps get named by you, before a term sheet depends on them.
After the deal
The read that priced the deal becomes the baseline.
Each portfolio company keeps its own workspace and publishes into your console on terms it has agreed to. You see an Exit readiness score per company, eight value levers scored against a line at 60, and which companies have gone quiet.
See Percomb Portfolio2 companies lost ground over the last 90 days, and one has gone quiet.
4 of 5 published a snapshot in the last 14 days.
| Company | Exit readiness | 90 days | Value levers | Open critical findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Corvus Health | 48LOW | -6 pts | Platform & Scalability: 44 of 100Engineering Velocity: 52 of 100Security & Compliance: 39 of 100Team Resilience: 47 of 100IP & Licensing: 58 of 100AI Leverage: 50 of 100Operational Maturity: 45 of 100Institutional Knowledge: 41 of 100 | 9 |
Arden Systems | 61MODERATE | -3 pts | Platform & Scalability: 62 of 100Engineering Velocity: 68 of 100Security & Compliance: 48 of 100Team Resilience: 47 of 100IP & Licensing: 72 of 100AI Leverage: 61 of 100Operational Maturity: 64 of 100Institutional Knowledge: 58 of 100 | 6 |
Ellis Manufacturing IT | 66MODERATE | +4 pts | Platform & Scalability: 70 of 100Engineering Velocity: 64 of 100Security & Compliance: 66 of 100Team Resilience: 69 of 100IP & Licensing: 74 of 100AI Leverage: 52 of 100Operational Maturity: 68 of 100Institutional Knowledge: 65 of 100 | 4 |
Brightline Data | 78HIGH | +2 pts | Platform & Scalability: 82 of 100Engineering Velocity: 79 of 100Security & Compliance: 76 of 100Team Resilience: 74 of 100IP & Licensing: 85 of 100AI Leverage: 71 of 100Operational Maturity: 80 of 100Institutional Knowledge: 77 of 100 | 1 |
Delta Ridge Software Quiet: no snapshot in 41 days | 71STALE | no change | Platform & Scalability: 74 of 100Engineering Velocity: 70 of 100Security & Compliance: 68 of 100Team Resilience: 72 of 100IP & Licensing: 76 of 100AI Leverage: 63 of 100Operational Maturity: 75 of 100Institutional Knowledge: 71 of 100 | 2 |
Investors read published snapshots: weekly and automatic, or curated releases the company issues by hand. With the company's approval, a Guest Pass opens a read-only, audited view of its live findings.
The investor console: five companies with the trouble at the top, and one that has not published in 41 days.