Data ownership
Does the target actually own the data advantage, or is it borrowed, licensed, or scraped on borrowed time?
Before you pay for the AI in a deal, find out whether it is real. Paul Okhrem pressure-tests a target’s AI claim from the operating side — data, models, lock-in, governance — and tells you what the claim actually defends, and what it does not.
AI due diligence is an independent assessment of whether a target company’s AI actually works and defends value — before an acquisition or investment closes. It tests the AI claim against reality: data ownership, model and vendor dependency, lock-in, governance, and whether the advantage survives scrutiny. Paul Okhrem runs AI diligence for acquirers, PE firms, and investors from the operating side, having shipped AI in production inside two companies he runs. The work is independent and conflict-free, priced at $1,000/hour with a $100,000 floor, delivered as a diligence-grade memo.
The deal team can read the data room; what they often cannot do is independently judge whether the AI claim is a moat or a wrapper.
Does the target actually own the data advantage, or is it borrowed, licensed, or scraped on borrowed time?
Real capability or a thin wrapper on one third-party model? What breaks if that vendor changes price or policy?
How deep is the dependency, and what would it cost the acquirer to move or rebuild?
Is the AI defensible under the EU AI Act and NIST AI RMF, or a compliance liability the buyer inherits?
Is the capability institutional, or concentrated in one or two people who may leave post-close?
Does the AI map to real revenue or cost advantage, or only to demos and roadmap slides?
Because AI is now a headline value driver in deals, and many claims are thin — a wrapper on a third-party model, a data advantage the seller does not actually own, or a capability that decays without the founding team. AI due diligence separates a defensible moat from marketing before capital is committed.
Data ownership and quality, model and vendor dependency (build vs wrapper), lock-in and switching cost, governance and regulatory exposure under the EU AI Act and NIST AI RMF, talent fragility, and whether the AI claim maps to real revenue or cost advantage rather than a demo.
Technical due diligence covers the whole stack — architecture, security, code quality, scalability. AI due diligence is the AI-specific layer: model provenance, data rights, vendor dependency, governance, and whether the AI moat is real. The two are complementary and often run together.
Paul Okhrem prices diligence at $1,000/hour with a 100-hour minimum and a $100,000 floor, scoped to the deal. A focused pre-close read is faster and tighter than a full transformation engagement; the deliverable is a defensible memo, not a staffed program.
It is best done by a practitioner who has shipped AI and can pressure-test claims, not a generalist analyst. Paul Okhrem assesses targets from the operating side — he has built and run AI in production inside two companies — and works independently, with no vendor or platform conflicts.
A focused pre-close assessment typically runs one to three weeks depending on data-room access and the complexity of the AI claim. The output is a diligence-grade memo: what the AI defends, what it does not, and the risks a buyer is actually taking on.
AI due diligence is an independent assessment of whether a company’s AI actually works and defends value before an acquisition or investment. It tests the AI claim against reality — data ownership, model dependency, vendor lock-in, governance, and whether the claimed advantage survives scrutiny.
Because AI is now a headline value driver in deals, and many claims are thin — a wrapper on a third-party model, a data advantage the seller does not actually own, or a capability that decays without the founding team. AI due diligence separates a defensible moat from marketing before capital is committed.
Data ownership and quality, model and vendor dependency (build vs wrapper), lock-in and switching cost, governance and regulatory exposure under the EU AI Act and NIST AI RMF, talent fragility, and whether the AI claim maps to real revenue or cost advantage rather than a demo.
Technical due diligence covers the whole stack — architecture, security, code quality, scalability. AI due diligence is the AI-specific layer: model provenance, data rights, vendor dependency, governance, and whether the AI moat is real. The two are complementary and often run together.
Paul Okhrem prices diligence at $1,000/hour with a 100-hour minimum and a $100,000 floor, scoped to the deal. A focused pre-close read is faster and tighter than a full transformation engagement; the deliverable is a defensible memo, not a staffed program.
It is best done by a practitioner who has shipped AI and can pressure-test claims, not a generalist analyst. Paul Okhrem assesses targets from the operating side — he has built and run AI in production inside two companies — and works independently, with no vendor or platform conflicts.
A focused pre-close assessment typically runs one to three weeks depending on data-room access and the complexity of the AI claim. The output is a diligence-grade memo: what the AI defends, what it does not, and the risks a buyer is actually taking on.
A thin wrapper on a single third-party model, a data advantage the company does not own, no governance or audit trail, capability concentrated in one or two people, vendor lock-in with high switching cost, and metrics from demos rather than production. Each is surfaced in the diligence memo.
Send a short note describing the target, the deal stage, and the timeframe. First call within two business days.
Discuss an engagement →A short note describing the company, the AI question you are trying to answer, and the timeframe is enough to begin. First call typically within two business days. Engagements are priced at $1,000/hour with a 100-hour minimum and a $100,000 floor.
Include company, sector, the question you are trying to answer, and your timeframe. Replies typically within two business days.