Technology due diligence · project basedKnow what you are buying
before you buy it.

What gets assessed

Technology diligence goes wrong in two directions. Too shallow, and it becomes a checklist that confirms what the management team already told you. Too deep in the wrong places, and it produces a code audit that answers questions nobody asked. The useful version sits between: what will this technology and this team cost you, and what will they let you do?

• Architecture and platform, including what genuinely constrains growth
• Technical debt, sized and separated into what matters and what does not
• Engineering organization, key person risk, and leadership capability
• Scaling readiness against the investment thesis, not against a generic benchmark
• AI claims, tested for what is actually in production versus what is in the deck
• Security and governance posture at a level appropriate to the deal
• Vendor and licensing exposure, including concentration risk
• Post-close roadmap and the investment it will require

Why an operator's read is different

Most diligence reports tell you what exists. The harder and more valuable question is what it will cost you to change it, and whether the team in place can do the changing.

That judgment comes from having modernized platforms under real constraints, having grown an engineering team from ten people to more than a hundred, and having watched which technical debt genuinely blocked a business and which was safely ignored for years. It is a different read than a framework produces.

The AI question deserves particular attention right now. A great many companies describe AI capabilities that are one prototype and a vendor contract. Distinguishing that from production capability takes someone who has shipped the real thing.

How it works

Scope and timeline are set to the deal, since a bolt-on and a platform acquisition do not need the same depth. Typical engagements include management interviews, architecture and documentation review, and a working session to test findings before they are written up.

You receive a written report with a clear risk rating, the findings that should affect valuation or deal structure, the questions worth raising with management, and a post-close technology plan with sizing. Fees are fixed and agreed before we start.

Independence

Gati has no implementation arm, no vendor relationships, and no remediation services to sell you afterward. That matters more in diligence than anywhere else, because a firm that profits from the fix has a quiet interest in finding one.

We do not serve banks, financial institutions, or fintech companies, and no engagement draws on confidential information from any current or former employer.

For portfolio companies after close, a fractional CTO retainer or an AI strategy roadmap often follows naturally from what diligence surfaces.