DUE DILIGENCE_
Technical due-diligence reports — not rumor decks for the board
Parallaxis productizes technical diligence under deal pressure: scope → collect → verify → score → report. Same evidence pack, real verification, report with owners — not rumor theater.
Every engagement builds a technical due-diligence report on the questions investors and boards already ask. Tap the stages on the right.
Due-diligence report_
Scope through report — claims, proof, and scores stakeholders can audit. Tap a stage.
Scope_
Stage 01 / 05
Frame the questions before the hunt
Deal questions, depth, and decision owners so the process starts with known asks — not an unbounded audit.
- Questions
- Depth
Full vault_
- 01 Scope
- 02 Collect
- 03 Verify
- 04 Score
- 05 Report
Scope → Collect → Verify → Score → Report — not rumor theater
- 01ScopeQuestions, depth, and owners
- 02CollectArtifacts and access paths
- 03VerifyClaims checked against evidence
- 04Score & reportFindings, risk, and next asks
02 · RUMOR VS VAULT_
Same deal. Two very different paths.
Toggle Rumor diligence vs verified diligence — watch where trust dies or completes.
Same constraint_
“IC needs a tech risk call Friday — and the only input is a management deck plus a demo.”
Toggle path — outcome morphs_
Path nodes_
Management deck as evidence
In vault_
Guess which claim is true
In vault_
Verify + score rubric
Never reached_
Report + residual asks
Never reached_
Confident score
Breaks here_
Outcome_
Rumor theater
Slide claims, demo theater, and hope. Risk depends on who sounded confident.
03 · DILIGENCE PRESSURE_
Confidence dies when evidence is hoped
Toggle diligence pressures — watch the confidence score and how fragile a risk call becomes.
Diligence pressures_· Toggle what kills confidence
Confidence score_
60/100
Confidence hit ≈ 40% · 2 pressures on_
Outcome_
Tightening the evidence
Some artifacts exist — still too many unverified claims.
04 · DOMAIN × SEVERITY_
Probe the cell before you score
Pick a finding domain and severity gate — see blast if it fails and which controls belong in the report.
Domain_
Severity_
Security · Critical
Blast if this fails_
Exploitable path in prod — deal risk is immediate and material.
Controls in the report_
- Source link
- Reproduce steps
- Board flag
Operator note_
Critical without a source is rumor — verify or drop.
05 · DILIGENCE HANDOFF_
What a technical due-diligence engagement leaves behind
Open a chapter — scope through report. Vocabulary stakeholders use next.
Diligence handoff chapters_
5 chapters- Decision questions
- Access matrix
- Out-of-scope list
In scope_
- Technical due diligence: scope → collect → verify → score → report
- Technical diligence with sourced findings
- Handoff report stakeholders can defend
Out of scope_
- Forward architecture decisions without a deal lens (see Technology Advisory)
- Hands-on remediation delivery (see Product Engineering / Cloud / DevOps)
- Ongoing managed run ownership (see Managed Services)
FIT_
Is Due Diligence the right next step?
Self-qualify — we work best when evidence for a deal or assessment is the constraint.
Good fit_
- You need sourced technical findings — not a founder walkthrough
- Severity must be defendable to a board or investment committee
- Access can be granted (or gaps logged as open questions)
Not yet_
- You need a forward build/buy decision (see Technology Advisory)
- You already know the risks and need a squad to remediate (see Product Engineering)
- The ask is ongoing ops ownership (see Managed Services)
NEXT STEP_
Ready to put technical due diligence under the assessment?
Map your systems — or talk through the diligence that currently lives as hallway rumor. We will confirm scope questions, access gaps, scoring criteria, and whether Technology Advisory should follow for the decision.
Common questions
Our process for Due Diligence: scope → collect → verify → score → report. You get sourced findings and a defendable report — not rumor theater.