A due diligence engagement should end with a verdict, and most of the time people assume that verdict is binary. Proceed or do not proceed. Yes or no. But the situations that actually need diligence are rarely that clean. The honest answer is usually "yes, if." That is the conditional proceed, and done properly it is the most useful verdict a report can deliver.
Why binary verdicts fail
A flat "do not proceed" kills deals that could have been made safe with two fixable conditions. A flat "proceed" waves through risks that a few pre-conditions would have neutralised. Both throw away information. The target is almost never perfectly safe or hopelessly broken. It is workable under specific conditions, and the job of the report is to name them.
What a real conditional proceed looks like
A conditional proceed is not a hedge. A hedge says "there are some considerations to bear in mind" and leaves the reader exactly where they started. A conditional proceed is precise. It says: proceed, provided these specific things happen, by these specific points.
That means each condition is concrete and checkable. Not "improve data governance" but "obtain documented evidence that training data was licensed for commercial use before close." Not "address the bias risk" but "complete a bias audit on the hiring model and remediate within 90 days of close." Each condition names what must be true, what evidence will demonstrate it, and when it is due. Pre-close conditions and post-close conditions are separated, because the ability to enforce them is very different before and after money changes hands.
Why it is underused
Conditional proceed is harder to write. A binary verdict is one word. A conditional proceed requires the assessor to think through exactly which risks are dealbreakers, which are fixable, and what fixing them actually looks like. It is more work and it exposes the assessor's judgement, which is precisely why it is more valuable. Anyone can say no. Saying "yes, under these four conditions, here is how to verify each one" is the part the client is actually paying for.
The test of a good verdict
A good verdict is one the investor or acquirer can act on without rereading the report. They should be able to take the conditions to the negotiating table as deal terms. If the verdict cannot be turned into action, it is not a verdict. It is a summary. The point of the assessment was never to describe what exists. It was to tell you what to do about it, and "proceed, but only if" is very often the truest thing the evidence supports.
If you are weighing an AI investment, acquisition, vendor selection, or training programme, our team is happy to start with a conversation about scope and approach.
The views and findings in this article are shared for general information only. They are high-level perspectives, not legal, financial, regulatory, or other professional advice, and should not be relied upon for any specific decision or circumstance. For guidance tailored to your situation, please consult a qualified adviser.