Standard DD looks for reasons to invest. Red Team DD tries to break every claim before you write the check. 70% of post-acquisition value destruction starts with risks DD 'didn't find.' The Confirmation Bias is structural: the DD firm is paid to validate, not invalidate. I flip that incentive. I assign a dedicated adversarial process whose sole purpose is to find every reason this deal should NOT happen — then present those findings against the deal thesis in a structured debate format. If the deal survives my red team, it's investable.
Standard tech DD has structural confirmation bias — the firm is paid to validate, not invalidate. 70% of post-acquisition value destruction starts with risks that 'standard DD didn't find.' You're paying for reassurance, not truth.
Your generalist technical advisors check boxes. They don't stress-test architectural claims or reverse-engineer AI pipelines — because they've never built 319 microservices or deployed 20 AI agents to production. They can't spot what they've never built.
Post-close surprises I've caught for other investors: the 'microservices architecture' was a monolith with API wrappers. The 'proprietary AI' was a prompt chain on GPT-4o. The '50-person engineering team' had 3 key people doing all the real work.
EU AI Act enforcement starts August 2026. You're about to acquire a compliance liability that nobody has priced into the deal — because nobody on the DD team has ever built an EU AI Act-compliant system.
A structured Green Team / Red Team format designed to stress-test the deal thesis before you write the check. The Green Team builds the technical investment case. The Red Team systematically attacks it across 10 pillars. The result is an adversarial presentation to your investment committee — not a report, a decision.
Assess the target's technology stack, team capabilities, and product architecture. Build the strongest possible technical case for the investment thesis.
Systematically attack the Green Team's case across 10 pillars: architecture stress fractures, AI moat reality, key-person dependencies, hidden tech debt, security vulnerabilities, scalability ceilings, IP contamination, regulatory landmines, data governance gaps, and team-vs-roadmap ambition gaps.
Structured presentation where Red Team challenges Green Team findings point-by-point. Every claim is contested, every assumption is stress-tested, every risk is quantified.
Investment committee-ready recommendation with confidence level, risk matrix, estimated remediation costs, and a 100-day post-close action plan if the deal proceeds.
A structured adversarial due diligence methodology built from evaluating 30+ AI companies and building production systems at Cisco (100M+ users) and Auralink (319 microservices). Designed to find what standard DD misses.
PE and VC firms making €10M+ investments in AI or tech-enabled companies. M&A teams evaluating acquisitions where technology is the core value driver. LPs wanting independent technical validation before committing capital. You need more than a checkbox DD — you need someone who will fight to find the truth.
Standard DD answers 'Is the technology sound?' Red Team DD answers 'Can I break this deal thesis?' We actively try to disprove the investment case — testing every architectural claim, stress-testing scalability assertions, reverse-engineering AI pipelines, and evaluating whether the team can actually deliver the roadmap. If the deal survives our red team, you have much higher confidence.
That's the point. Better to lose a deal at the DD stage than to lose your investment post-close. That said, many Red Team engagements result in 'CONDITIONAL GO' — proceed, but renegotiate valuation based on remediation costs, or require specific technical milestones as closing conditions.
We work with whatever access level you negotiate. Full code access and team interviews yield the deepest assessment. But even with limited access — architecture diagrams, API documentation, demo environments, and management presentations — an experienced builder can identify red flags that generalist consultants miss.
Standard practice: NDA before any engagement, strict information barriers between deals, all work products delivered under your ownership. 15+ years of enterprise confidentiality practice at Cisco and Renault-Nissan. I decline conflicting engagements within the same competitive space.
A structured debate format: Green Team presents the technical investment case (15 minutes), Red Team presents the counter-case with evidence (15 minutes), then open Q&A with the investment committee. Each pillar is scored with traffic-light indicators and benchmarked against comparable deals. The IC gets a clear, evidence-based picture — not a 100-page report they won't read.
Explore other services that complement this offering
Let's discuss how this service can address your specific challenges and drive real results.