Technical due diligence
An independent read on what a target has really built, written for the people who have to price the risk rather than for the people who built it. Architecture, security, cryptographic assurance and regulatory exposure, with the findings ranked.
I have been on the other side of this room
For four years I represented a group to investors, liquidity partners, enterprise validators and regulators. I prepared the data rooms. I chose which numbers went on the slide and which ones needed a footnote.
That is the useful part. A throughput figure has a measurement method behind it, and the method is where the truth lives. A security audit has a scope, and what was excluded matters more than what passed. An architecture diagram shows the intended system, not the one running in production on a Tuesday afternoon.
I know which claims are load-bearing and which are decoration, because I have written both kinds.
Four areas, ranked by what tends to kill deals
Architecture and scalability claims
Every performance number traced to how it was measured, under what load, on what hardware, and whether it holds outside the benchmark.
Security posture and cryptographic assurance
Key management, primitive selection, audit scope and what fell outside it, incident history, and the difference between a penetration test and a real one.
Regulatory exposure
Across the jurisdictions the target actually operates in rather than the ones it is registered in. What is licensed, what is tolerated, and what is a supervisory letter away from stopping.
Engineering organisation and key-person risk
Whether the system can be maintained by the people who will still be there in eighteen months.
Tell me what you are dealing with
A twenty-minute call on your situation, then a one-page written scope with a fixed price. Both free, and the scope is yours to take elsewhere.
Two working days, from me rather than an assistant.
What you send stays between us. An NDA before the first call is fine, and I will sign yours rather than send mine.