Know what you are really buying before you inherit the downside.
Separate durable AI value from supplier dependency, weak data rights, unsupported claims and hidden transaction exposure before capital is committed.
The target says it is AI-native. The investment question is what that claim is actually worth.
A compelling AI story can still depend on one supplier, uncertain data rights, fragile prompts, unsupported performance claims or governance that exists mainly in the pitch deck.
Core transformation: Move from an AI narrative to a claim-to-evidence position that shows what creates value, what creates liability and what should change the deal.
- AI claims are embedded in the growth story.
- Proprietary value and third-party dependency are difficult to separate.
- Data rights, model provenance and vendor terms are not fully understood.
- Cyber, regulatory and resilience exposure sit outside the valuation narrative.
- Integration assumptions have not been tested against operating reality.
- Material AI claims are traced to evidence.
- Dependencies and concentration are visible.
- Regulatory, contractual, data and security exposure are explicit.
- Red flags are translated into value-at-risk and management questions.
- Deal conditions, protections and Day 1/100 priorities are clearer.
Value claims
Whether claimed AI capability is real, repeatable and material to the thesis.
Data rights
Whether the target can lawfully and sustainably use the data underpinning value.
Models & vendors
Which capabilities are proprietary, licensed, concentrated or difficult to replace.
Security & privacy
Whether AI introduces material cyber, privacy or control exposure.
Regulatory exposure
Which obligations, contracts or operating assumptions could affect the thesis.
Resilience & integration
What could fail after close and what must be addressed on Day 1 or Day 100.
For investors and deal teams where AI claims affect value, liability or integration risk.
Private equity
Test whether the AI thesis creates durable value or hidden dependency.
Investment committees
Bring a decision-grade AI position into approval rather than a technology narrative.
Corporate development
Identify AI exposure that can change valuation, integration or the operating model.
General Counsel
Surface issues that need legal interpretation without confusing governance review with legal advice.
Lenders
Understand whether AI dependencies materially alter operational or financial resilience.
M&A advisers
Add focused AI evidence to a wider transaction workstream.
Red-flag scan
Ten-day focused diligence.
From £25,000
Full diligence
Broader evidence and exposure review.
From £55,000
Complex transaction
Cross-border or complex transaction scope.
From £85,000+
Which AI claim would materially change the deal if it proved weaker than expected?
Bring the investment thesis, the target claims, and the evidence currently available. The diligence starts there.