Two findings sit next to each other in a due diligence report. One says the model hits 94 percent precision. The other says the team has a strong retraining process. They look equally authoritative on the page. But the first might be a figure that appears in the target's test results and matches what the engineers described in interviews, and the second might be something a founder said on a call. If the report does not tell you which is which, it has hidden the most important thing about each finding: the evidence behind it.
Our team labels every finding by its evidence basis. There are three levels. Each label describes where the evidence came from and how much of it there is. None of them warrants that a claim is true. That is the point of the system: a due diligence report is an account of what the available evidence supports, and the reader should be able to see exactly what that evidence was.
Represented
The lowest level. Management or the vendor stated it, and no supporting artefact came with it. Represented findings are not worthless. They are context, and often the starting point for a deeper look. But a represented finding rests entirely on someone's word, so the report flags it explicitly. The reader can then weigh it for what it is instead of mistaking it for something the evidence supports.
Documented
The middle level. The claim is supported by specific artefacts the target provided and we reviewed. An evaluation report, system logs, test results, a section of the codebase. We did not reproduce the result ourselves, and the label says so plainly. What it tells the reader is that a concrete artefact sits behind the claim and that we examined it and found it consistent with what was claimed.
Corroborated
The highest level. Multiple independent sources align. The documentation is consistent with how the system behaved when demonstrated, and the accounts given in separate interviews match each other and the artefacts. No single source has to carry the finding, because the sources agree. Corroboration is the strongest position an assessor can honestly report: it does not certify that a claim is true, but it shows that everything available points the same way.
Why labelling changes the decision
When findings carry their evidence basis, the decision-maker can act intelligently. A corroborated red flag deserves immediate weight. A represented strength is a reason to ask for the artefact before relying on it. Collapse the labels into one undifferentiated list and the reader loses the ability to weigh anything. They are left with a document that looks rigorous and tells them nothing about confidence.
There is a second benefit, and it is one good founders appreciate. Labelling protects them too. A founder making an honest claim they cannot yet evidence would rather see it marked as represented than have it silently upgraded into something the report treats as established. Evidence labelling is not about catching people out. It is about being precise regarding the basis for every statement in the report, so that everyone is making the decision on the same honest footing.
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.