The ten questions
- 1. Which part of the investment thesis depends materially on technology working as assumed?
- 2. Can the current architecture and operating model support the growth case without disproportionate rework or cost?
- 3. Which technology risks could change price, conditions, timing, reserves or the 100-day plan?
- 4. Where are the largest key-person, vendor, cloud, data or platform dependencies?
- 5. Does the product roadmap align with the commercial strategy and available delivery capacity?
- 6. Is cybersecurity posture proportionate to the company's exposure, customer commitments and transaction context?
- 7. Is the AI strategy credible, economically supportable and defensible—or mainly roadmap language?
- 8. What technology investment is required in the first 12–24 months, and which items are non-discretionary?
- 9. Which material questions remain unresolved because evidence was unavailable or access was constrained?
- 10. What should the board expect to see 100 days after close to know that material findings are actually being addressed?
Why these questions matter more in 2026
A&M's 2026 diligence research describes investors balancing value creation with a stronger focus on downside risk while demanding more operational assessment alongside commercial and financial work. Technology readiness and leadership capacity are specifically part of that shift.
Crosslake similarly frames technology diligence around the investment strategy, company context and level of access rather than a fixed checklist. The common implication is that the diligence product should help the IC understand materiality, not merely catalogue weaknesses.
What should not happen
- A high-severity technical issue should not automatically become a high-severity investment issue without explaining business materiality.
- A management claim should not be reported as a verified fact unless the evidence supports it.
- A missing document should not be treated as proof of either strength or weakness.
- A remediation estimate should not be more precise than the evidence allows.
- The technology adviser should not make the investment decision for the committee.
The decision-ready format
The most useful IC output is concise: what was examined, the material findings, the evidence confidence, the investment implications, required conditions, indicative remediation where supportable and the first post-close actions.
The technical appendix can be detailed. The IC page should be decision-ready.