Facts
What the architecture, materials, access, and operating record actually show.
Back to Cybersecurity
Security due diligence & technical risk review
Check security and technical claims before an investment or purchase.
Independent review of architecture, security controls and operating constraints for investment, purchase, vendor selection and launch decisions.
Why commission the review
A vendor diagram may omit a dependency, a recovery assumption or a security control that has not been tested. We check the claims that matter to your purchase, investment or launch against the available technical records.
Best fit: Investors, buyers, technical leaders, boards and family offices evaluating AI applications, lab information workflows, private-client systems or critical technology vendors.
Scope
We review application services, identity, data flows, integrations, deployment and recovery using supplied records and authorized read-only access. Any hands-on validation has separately agreed tests, owners and stop conditions.
What you receive
The technical risks, options and unanswered questions.
An architecture and dependency summary, a record of the claims checked, and technical risks ranked by their effect on your plans. The decision memo compares options and identifies questions that need further testing.
Timeline
We confirm a delivery date after reviewing the available materials and your deadline. Missing system access or deeper testing may require a second phase.
Decision record
Show which claims have been checked.
The report gives technical teams and decision-makers a common record of the architecture, checked claims, remaining questions and available options.
Assumptions
What must be true for the vendor, product, or launch claim to hold.
Open questions
Unverified points that could change the recommendation.
Decision
The available options, their conditions and the next checks needed.
Assessment detail
The proposal identifies the systems and tests included. The report records findings, unavailable access and any checks that could not be completed.
Architecture intake
Provide the available architecture and deployment diagrams, key request sequences, data flows, identity model, dependencies, recovery targets and decision criteria. Identify the version, environment and owner of each document, and list anything missing.
Workflow and control review
Trace a workflow through identity, data access, external dependencies, change controls, telemetry and recovery. For lab or physical-system integrations, identify the operator boundary and safety owner; live equipment actuation is excluded from the default scope.
Technical claims register
For each important claim, the register identifies its source, date, supporting configuration or test, and any conflicting information. It shows which claims were checked in operation and which rely on documentation.
Decision memo and alternatives
Compare proceeding with conditions, reducing the integration, delaying the commitment or commissioning more tests. Explain the operating tradeoffs and questions that could change the recommendation. Financial estimates require a separately agreed basis.
Remediation and validation
Assign owners and acceptance criteria to the risks that could change the decision. Agree separately on implementation and retesting, including the affected version, adjacent workflows and the date leadership should revisit the memo.
Reviewer relationship and independence
We check conflicts and disclose relevant advisory, implementation or remediation relationships before accepting the engagement. If we built or changed the system, our checks are verification or retesting; an independent assessment requires a separate reviewer.
Scope limits and access
Send a redacted summary first; we arrange a separate channel for detailed records. The service provides technical analysis, not an audit opinion, legal or investment advice, certification or penetration testing. Production changes are outside the review.
What the review covers
Check architecture claims against the system.
- Checks the architecture and operating assumptions behind a purchase, investment or launch.
- Ranks risks by their technical impact, operating constraints and effect on the available options.
- Shows where a recommendation relies on supplied records and where testing is still needed.
When to use it
Before a purchase, investment or launch.
Use this before signing with a vendor, funding a product, approving an architecture change or launching a service when unresolved technical claims could change the plan.
Next step