You commissioned an AI due diligence report, it has arrived, and you are an investor or a board member, not a machine learning engineer. The good news is that a well-written report is built to be read by you, not by a specialist. The bad news is that not every report is well written, and knowing how to read one also means knowing how to tell when it is failing you.
Start with the verdict
A good report has a clear verdict near the front: proceed, conditional proceed, or do not proceed. Read that first. If you cannot find a verdict, or it dissolves into "there are considerations to bear in mind," that is the first warning sign. The report's job was to reach a conclusion. One that hands the decision back to you has not done it.
Read the conditions, not just the conclusion
If the verdict is conditional proceed, the conditions are the most valuable part of the document. They are the things that must be true, or must happen, for the deal to be safe. Read them as potential deal terms, because that is what they are. Good conditions are specific and time-bound: "obtain evidence of commercial data licensing before close," not "improve data governance." Vague conditions are a sign the assessor was not sure what the real problem was.
Check the evidence levels
A serious report tells you how confident it is in each finding, usually marked as verified, corroborated, or reported. A verified red flag is something the assessor confirmed themselves and you should treat as fact. A reported concern is something the company said, not yet confirmed. If the report does not distinguish these, you cannot tell which findings to trust, and you should ask the assessor why they left it out.
Which sections to read, in order
Read the executive summary first, in full. It should give you the verdict and the two or three things driving it in a couple of minutes. Then read the risks section, starting at the top, because a good report puts the decision-changing risks first. The deep technical detail is there for your advisors to scrutinise. You do not need to read it line by line, but you should confirm it exists, because a report with no detail under the summary is a summary pretending to be an assessment.
Red flags in the report itself
The report can fail in ways worth recognising. No clear verdict. Findings with no evidence levels. A flat list of observations with no prioritisation, forcing you to guess what matters. Heavy technical detail with no plain-language conclusion. Recommendations with no timelines. And the subtle one: a report that reads as uniformly positive. Real assessments find real issues. A report that surfaces nothing concerning is more likely incurious than reassuring, and that is worth a hard question to whoever wrote it.
The bottom line
You are not grading the technology. You are checking whether the assessment gives you a defensible basis for a decision. If you can read the summary, understand the verdict, see the conditions, and judge the confidence behind the findings, the report has done its job, and so can you.
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.