Private equity & acquirers

Ask For The Counter-Evidence Section

If a diligence report doesn't have one, you're reading a sales document. Everyone in the room is paid to close, which is exactly why the measurement has to come from someone who isn't. We read the codebase, produce a dated and sourced document, and tell you plainly what we could not establish.

ShippedRead-only measurement of an unfamiliar codebase, delivered as a dated, sourced document that discloses its own errors, is the single thing we have the most evidence for.
Talk about a diligence read How it works

Repository access only. No production access required.

What we will not do
  • We give no valuation opinion and no go/no-go recommendation. We produce the measurement; the investment decision is yours, and saying so is what protects the finding.
  • We take no fee contingent on the deal closing. It makes every finding suspect, and the findings are the whole product.
  • We state remediation cost as a range, and the reason it is a range. Never a point estimate on a codebase we have read for two weeks.
  • Security posture in a diligence read is a review, not a penetration test. We do run authorised penetration testing as its own engagement, with written scope. Not inside a read-only pre-close window, though, and never against an estate the seller has not authorised.
Deal sizes where a big-four engagement is disproportionate, but “the CTO seemed confident” is not diligence.
Who this is for

Buying A Software-Enabled Business

Lower-middle-market private equity, search funds and strategic acquirers. Plus the operating partners who inherit the estate after close and have to make the hundred-day plan real.

Buying a rewrite you did not price
The platform works today. Whether it can absorb the roadmap in the investment thesis is a different question, and usually nobody has answered it.
Key-person risk stated as a bullet
“One person understands the deploy” appears in every deck. How would you know? It is measurable from the history rather than from an interview.
A report that only confirms the thesis
Everyone advising the deal is paid on it closing. A review that finds nothing inconvenient tells you about the reviewer, not the asset.
Integration cost after close
Where the value case most often leaks, and the part hardest to see from outside the codebase.
A hundred-day plan written before anyone read the code
It commits the operating partner to a sequence nobody has tested against the thing itself.
How we work it

Measure First, In That Order

1

Pre-close technical diligence: 2–3 weeks, fixed price

Read-only, repository access only. Change-cost census, key-person concentration, security posture, release risk, and an explicit list of what we could not establish. That last section is the one most reports quietly omit.

2

A hundred-day plan grounded in the measurement

Written after reading the code rather than before. Sequenced by what the estate can actually absorb.

3

Post-close remediation

Release governance, decomposition, and correctness on the money path: the work that turns a finding into a fixed thing.

4

Ongoing engineering capacity for the portfolio company

Retained, if the asset needs hands rather than another opinion.

The question we ask first: “How many places would a change to X have to be made?” Until that has a number, every roadmap estimate in the model is a guess wearing a spreadsheet.
How we work

Three Habits You Can Check

We publish counter-evidence in your document

Instances of a pattern and the counter-examples, counted, in the same deliverable. A review that only confirms itself is a sales document with a cover page.

We disclose our own errors, dated

Where a first pass of ours was wrong, the correction ships in the client packet rather than being quietly fixed. It is the cheapest way for you to calibrate how much to trust the rest.

We work read-only

No production access required to be useful, which matters a great deal before close. What we can and cannot see from a repository is stated up front.

We hand back a real artefact

A document behind automated content gates, including a disclosure check that re-reads the rendered file rather than trusting the tool that produced it.

Related

Where This Leads

Post-closeDevOps as a ServiceRelease governance and pipelines that can actually fail. Money pathBilling AssuranceWhen revenue is computed by code rather than agreed. DirectoryAll MarketsEvery segment we serve, with our honest fit for each.
Talk to us

Before You Sign

Tell us the shape of the asset and the timeline. We will tell you what we could establish in the window you have, and what we could not.

  • Read-only, repository access only
  • 2–3 weeks, fixed price
  • Counter-evidence included, not omitted
  • No valuation opinion, no success fee

Ask about diligence

We reply within one business day.

No spam. TechJoy will never share your information. We use your phone number only to reply.

Our fit rating for this market is Shipped, from the capability register we maintain internally. No client is named anywhere on this site. Any figure we quote in an engagement carries its measurement basis and date, and we publish no improvement percentage we have not measured.

logo-of-the-tech-joy
HomeAbout UsOur StoryServicesContactLoginfacebook-icon-the-tech-joylinkedin-icon-the-tech-joy
facebook-icon-the-tech-joylinkedin-icon-the-tech-joy