Review duration
4 weeks
Findings
Ordered register
Effort against each item
Outcome
Deal repriced
The challenge
An investment committee had a growth plan in front of it and a product that demonstrated well, but no independent view of whether the platform could carry the plan.
The founding team was confident and not deliberately misleading. Nobody had stress-tested the assumptions in writing.
Our approach
We reviewed architecture, code, infrastructure cost and the access model, then modelled the platform against the volumes in the growth plan rather than today's traffic.
Every finding was written for a non-technical reader, with the commercial consequence stated before the technical detail.
The solution
A written diligence report with an ordered risk register, each item carrying an effort estimate and a cost consequence.
A clear verdict rather than a hedge: the product was sound, the data architecture and per-transaction cost model were not viable at the planned volume without rework.
A remediation roadmap the committee could fund as part of the round, and the founders could execute.
The results
The round proceeded on repriced terms that accounted for the rework, rather than discovering it two quarters later.
The founding team got a prioritised engineering roadmap out of the process instead of only a verdict.
The committee had a written basis for its decision that survived later scrutiny.