The deliverable
Most technology diligence reports end in a color rating, while a PRISM report assigns every finding a deal action. This page shows the structure of the deliverable (the sections, the scoring, the classification, and the evidence discipline) without the substance of any one engagement. The sample is published on this page.
Illustrative composite: not derived from any single engagement.
What is inside
A full-scope PRISM report follows the same structure every time. Every finding in Sections 4 through 11 is recorded in a single rated register in Section 13, so nothing observed is lost between the assessment and the deal. The section list shows the depth:
How it is scored
Each of the five PRISM dimensions is scored 0 to 100. The scores are combined into a composite that places the asset in a band. The band tells the sponsor what the technology means for the deal, from an asset worth paying for to a risk that has to be priced or walked away from.
Can the technology support the investment thesis?
What technology risks create financial exposure?
Can the platform scale with the plan?
Can the data create value?
Can this team deliver the thesis?
How every finding is classified
Illustrative composite: representative findings, de-identified.
Every material finding is assigned a transaction classification, a timeline, and a confidence level, so it leads to a decision instead of remaining an observation. One representative example of each classification:
A flat network across the plants means a single compromised office endpoint reaches the plant floor. This must be resolved or contractually protected before close: validated interim controls, a funded remediation plan, an accountable owner, and appropriate escrow or holdback.
One acquired site runs an unsupported, unintegrated legacy system that forces a manual monthly consolidation. The remediation cost and the integration exposure change the offer through purchase price, escrow, or indemnity, not the post-close plan.
The underwritten operating-margin improvement depends on shop-floor visibility and scrap reduction the current stack cannot produce as it stands. A Phase 1 systems investment is a prerequisite to the value creation plan, not a discretionary upgrade.
Once shop-floor data capture is standardized, machine-vision defect detection and predictive maintenance become quantifiable operating upside. It is modeled, then excluded from base underwriting until a pilot validates it.
Evidence discipline
Confidence reflects how an estimate was derived, not how serious the finding is. It separates a number a sponsor can underwrite from a number that needs a named validation step before it is used to set purchase price.
High confidence
Grounded in direct invoices, current vendor pricing, unit counts, contractual terms, or management-validated operating data.
Medium confidence
Suitable for initial underwriting, but the report names the specific validation step required before the figure is used for final price, escrow, or capital-plan decisions.
Low confidence
A directional scenario, flagged as such, that should not be included in base underwriting.
What we did not assess
Every report states what was reviewed, what was not independently validated, and which specialist workstreams sit outside the technology scope (environmental and legal, asset-condition engineering, commercial diligence, and financial-statement diligence). The sponsor can then see which confirmatory work is still outstanding and who owns it.
One-paragraph executive summary
Illustrative composite excerpt.
A composite mid-market precision-manufacturing platform, assessed for a buy-and-build thesis. The technology estate is functional and has supported steady performance. It was built incrementally across three decades and one tuck-in acquisition without a unifying architecture. It was not built to support the margin-improvement thesis the sponsor is underwriting. Composite PRISM Score: 45 / 100, Technology Risk. This places the target in the band where priced remediation is required. The 100-day plan is critical to whether the investment thesis is achievable on the underwritten timeline. Recommendation: proceed with conditions.
Frequently asked questions
No. The sample is published on this page, with no form and no download gate. Read it here, and contact us when you have a live transaction to discuss.
No. The sample is a fictional composite built to demonstrate the format and the depth. The findings, figures, and company are representative and are not derived from any single engagement. In a live engagement, every conclusion is validated against management interviews, documentary evidence, and vendor quotations.
A code review tells you whether the code is messy. A Big-4 assessment gives you a thorough checklist. Neither tells you what the finding means for the deal. PRISM classifies every finding as GATE, PRICE, THESIS, or LEVER and ties it to price, terms, or the 100-day plan. It is written by an operator who has held P&L responsibility, for a sponsor who has to make an offer.
Core diligence is typically seven to ten business days after a substantially complete data room and timely access to management. Multi-site coverage, passive OT asset discovery, specialist certification review, and detailed value-creation modeling are scoped to the transaction thesis, deal structure, and timeline.
Tell us the situation in a few lines, and we will tell you whether a PRISM assessment fits. Sujit reads every note.