Technical assessment that separates real AI capability from sophisticated marketing, whether you're pricing a deal, readying a company for sale, or building value in one you've already made.
Dr Colin Kelly
PhD in NLP (Cambridge)
Former Head of Applied AI Research
Fully independent -- no vendor affiliation, no implementation upsell
Every pitch deck claims "proprietary AI." Every demo looks impressive. Every founder sounds confident about their technical moat.
Most AI implementations wrap commodity APIs with little innovation. The impressive demo hides architecture that won't scale, won't differentiate, and won't survive competition from anyone with real technical depth.
Legal and financial due diligence can't assess AI technical capability. Without deep technical expertise, telling real innovation from marketing is nearly impossible.
The same blindness applies inside companies you already own. Portfolio businesses carry AI opportunity nobody has mapped and AI debt nobody has priced: brittle pilots that never reached production, vendor commitments that don't fit the operating model, and a plan built on what suppliers pitched rather than what the business can absorb.
The stakes:
The engagement takes three forms, depending on where you sit relative to the company. The method is the same six-dimension assessment; the question it answers is different.
Will the AI claim in the deck survive buy-side scrutiny? Before a process opens, I verify and document the AI capability so it does. An independent report shortens the buyer's technical diligence and keeps the process moving.
Typical trigger: an exit on the horizon, a data room being assembled, or an M&A advisor readying the AI story for market.
Is the target's AI real, defensible, and worth what the valuation assumes? I assess the technology before you commit capital, so the AI claim in the deck is priced on evidence.
Typical trigger: a term sheet, an LOI, or an investment committee asking questions the data room can't answer.
Where can AI genuinely create value in this business, what AI debt is already on the books, and what does capturing the opportunity actually cost? I assess the company's systems, data, and team against a realistic plan, not a vendor's pitch.
Typical trigger: a hold-period value-creation plan, an operating partner review, or an AI initiative that has stalled and nobody can say why.
This service is for:
Investors (VC, PE, family offices) evaluating AI-focused companies before making significant investments
Private equity firms and operating partners assessing AI readiness and value-creation potential in companies they already own, or are acquiring for operational reasons
Corporate M&A teams assessing AI capabilities as part of acquisition due diligence
Exiting founders and their M&A advisors who want the AI capability verified and documented before a sale process opens
Executives considering major AI vendor commitments or platform bets
Boards who need independent technical assessment before approving significant budgets
I provide honest assessment based on technical evidence, regardless of what you hope to hear.
Six dimensions, whether you're pricing a deal, readying a sale, or building value in a company you own
Is this genuine AI or a thin wrapper? Automated code analysis plus human review of architecture, model choices, and implementation quality.
Will this advantage persist? I assess data assets, proprietary training, switching costs, and exposure to foundation model commoditisation.
What breaks at 10x? I review infrastructure, cost dynamics, and technical debt that compounds with growth.
Can they execute the roadmap? I evaluate technical leadership depth, key person dependencies, and realistic delivery capacity.
Where's the risk? I assess data provenance, privacy compliance, and responsible AI practices.
Do the technical capabilities support the revenue model and growth claims? I find the gap between what the tech can do and what the pitch deck promises.
| Surface Claim | What I Actually Assess |
|---|---|
| "Proprietary AI" | Custom models, fine-tuned, or API wrapper? |
| "Unique data moat" | Is the data genuinely differentiated and defensible? |
| "Advanced ML capabilities" | Sophisticated architecture or basic implementation? |
| "Scalable platform" | Will it actually scale, or will it break at 10x load? |
| "Strong technical team" | Can they build what's needed for the next 3 years? |
| "First-mover advantage" | Technical moat or just temporary lead? |

Dr Colin Kelly holds a PhD in Natural Language Processing from Cambridge and read Mathematics and Computer Science at Oxford. He has been building AI systems since a decade before LLMs existed -- built, scaled, and governed in production, not just assessed.
PhD in Natural Language Processing, University of Cambridge: Original research in extracting knowledge from unstructured text
Head of Applied AI Research, AI Defence Platform: Built and led the team delivering production AI capabilities
AI Value Assessment Experience, IBM: Identified €50m+ in AI-driven benefits across telco, financial services, and automotive sectors
Founder, Committee for Responsible AI: Built ethical risk frameworks now used in production systems
Hands-on builder: I've architected production AI systems and taken an AI product from zero code to patent-pending public beta, so my assessments reflect how AI is built today
Invited Speaker, Cambridge MSt in AI Ethics & Society: Trusted voice on AI capability and governance
"I'm fully independent: no implementation upsell, no vendor affiliation, no dog in the fight. The assessment is the product -- and I'll stand behind every finding." -- Dr Colin Kelly, PhD (Cambridge), Agathon Founder
Standalone Technical Assessment Report including:
Clear framing for your deal decision or value-creation plan
Where AI creates value in the business, and what capturing it costs
Is the AI genuine and defensible?
Severity ratings and mitigation options
What breaks, when, and what it costs to fix
Can they deliver what they promise?
How does their tech compare to alternatives?
Issues needing founder or CTO clarification
Optional add-on: Integration with your legal and financial DD workstreams
Every report is custom to the engagement. No templated box-ticking.
Day 1
I align with you on the question the assessment must answer — the investment thesis for a deal, or the value-creation plan for a company you own — plus your specific concerns and what would change your decision.
Days 2-6
Document review, automated code analysis, data room review, technical interviews with founders and CTO, and capability demonstrations with independent testing.
Days 7-8
I synthesise findings against your thesis or value-creation plan. What's real? What's hype? What are the risks? What opportunities is the business missing?
Days 9-10
Written report and a live debrief with your investment or operating team.
Full Due Diligence
From $15,000
The six-dimension assessment, report and debrief.
Larger Buy-Side Mandates
Priced against the decision
A fraction of a percent of deal value.
Core assessment: two weeks | Larger scopes: up to six | Start: typically within one week | Expedited timelines available | Every engagement confidential and NDA-protected

Most organisations are building AI compliance theatre whilst competitors build capability fortresses, treating governance as bureaucratic overhead rather than the competitive advantage that enables sustainable AI deployment.

Sutton's bitter lesson reveals that most AI implementations feel shallow because they prioritize domain expertise over computational scale, leaving roughly 80% of potential untapped.

Organizations considering building their own large language models (LLMs) should weigh the benefits of control and specialisation against challenges like high computational needs and expertise requirements.
Delays in technical assessment can cost competitive advantage.
Or download the red flags guide to get started
Typically within one week of engagement confirmation.
Preferred but not required. Ideal: codebase access, architecture documentation, technical team interviews, live system access. Minimum: technical team interviews and live demonstrations. I can deliver meaningful assessment from documentation, demos, and technical interviews alone.
Reluctance itself is informative. I can assess based on available materials and flag gaps as risks. Sometimes the most important finding is what they won't show you.
Always. All engagements are fully confidential.
Three differences. First, I've built production AI systems, not just assessed them, so my evaluations come from shipping AI products rather than theoretical frameworks. Second, this is AI-specific depth, not generalist technical DD that treats AI as one checkbox among many. Third, you get direct access to the person doing the assessment, not a partner who sells and a junior team who delivers.
The report includes severity ratings for every issue, along with estimated remediation costs and timelines. I help you understand whether issues are deal-breakers, negotiation points, or post-acquisition fixes. A negative finding isn't necessarily a reason to walk away. It's information that affects valuation and deal structure.
Yes. The same six-dimension assessment applies, pointed at a different question: instead of "is this target's AI worth the price", it answers "where can AI create value in this business, what AI debt is already on the books, and what would capturing the opportunity cost". This suits hold-period value-creation planning, operating partner reviews, and initiatives that have stalled without a clear diagnosis.
An AI opportunity map grounded in the company's actual systems, data, and team rather than vendor claims; a register of existing AI debt with severity and remediation costs; and a sequenced view of what to fix, build, or buy first. The output is a plan your operating team can execute, with the costs stated before you commit budget.
Yes. That's sell-side readiness: I verify and document the AI capability before a process opens, so the claim in the deck survives buy-side scrutiny. An independent report shortens the buyer's technical diligence and keeps the process moving -- and it gives you a clear, evidenced AI story before buyers start asking questions.
I provide technical assessment and risk analysis. Investment recommendations fall outside scope, because that decision depends on factors beyond technical capability. I give you the technical truth; you make the business decision.
12 warning signs that you need expert technical assessment
Prefer to read it first? The full checklist is online, free and ungated: the AI due diligence checklist.
The red flags that internal teams and generalist advisors miss, and why they matter for your investment decision.