Use when running commercial, operational, legal, or financial due diligence; preparing an evidence room; or reporting red flags and evidence gaps. Use the relevant plan-section skill for section drafting.
Instrucciones de origen · Vista previa de solo lectura
name
meta-due-diligence
description
Use when running commercial, operational, legal, or financial due diligence; preparing an evidence room; or reporting red flags and evidence gaps. Use the relevant plan-section skill for section drafting.
Use before presenting a plan to investors, lenders, DFIs, or strategic partners.
Use when auditing whether claims, numbers, and credentials can survive scrutiny.
Use for outbound diligence on counterparties where the business itself must verify another party.
Do Not Use When
Do not use as a substitute for basic drafting or market research.
Do not assume DD is complete because the plan sounds polished.
Do not certify claims that have not been checked against documents or verifiable evidence.
For meta-due-diligence, route to the relevant plan-section skill instead when the request is section drafting rather than cross-section analysis.
Required Inputs
Input
Source / provider
Required?
If absent
Due Diligence brief and decision audience
Client, plan owner, or approved project files
Yes
Stop before making a recommendation; state the missing decision context.
Claims, assumptions, and supporting evidence
Source register, model, research notes, interviews, or operating records
Yes
Separate known facts from assumptions and return a qualified gap list.
Authority and delivery constraints
Requesting owner and repository instructions
Yes
Remain read-only and produce a draft or review only.
Completed or near-complete plan sections
All available supporting documents and source files
Audience type and DD intensity expected
Any known risk areas, unsupported claims, or counterparties requiring review
Workflow
Choose the DD mode: inbound readiness, outbound DD, or plan DD audit.
Identify the claims and evidence that matter most to the transaction or submission.
Check supportability section by section and document by document.
Classify issues by severity, missing evidence, and likely investor or lender reaction.
Build the DD action list or counterparty findings pack.
Hand unresolved items back to the relevant skills for correction.
Decision, stop, and recovery controls
Decision point: confirm that the requested output is the due-diligence findings register and that the decision concerns which red flags block, condition, or permit the transaction.
Stop condition: halt the affected conclusion if required evidence is missing (data room, scope, source provenance, and materiality threshold) or if the work could lead to this identified risk: treating a missing document as satisfactory evidence.
Recovery: obtain the missing record or reviewer, repeat the affected check, and update the exception record before release.
Quality Bar
Every major claim is either verified, caveated, or flagged.
The DD output distinguishes missing proof from genuine red flags.
The result is practical for submission readiness, not just theoretical.
The work improves survival under real scrutiny.
Anti-Patterns
Assuming data quality because the narrative sounds confident.
Leaving unsupported claims in place because they are strategically useful.
Mixing minor admin gaps with deal-breaking issues.
Treating DD as formatting rather than verification.
Treating a generic due diligence template as a conclusion. Correction: tie each choice to the named audience, evidence, and operating constraint.
Applying the wrong neighbouring route to meta due diligence. Correction: confirm the decision and route to the named neighbour before analysis.
Treating an assumption as verified evidence. Correction: label it, cite its source or owner, and assign a verification action.
Recommending action without a decision threshold. Correction: state the measurable acceptance condition and review trigger.
Recording an unavailable check as passed. Correction: mark it not assessed and state the consequence for the decision.
Mutating or publishing during an analysis-only task. Correction: remain read-only until the owner gives explicit authority.
Outputs
Artefact
Consumer
Observable acceptance condition
Due Diligence deliverable
Named decision-maker or plan author
The recommended choice, assumptions, countercase, and next action are explicit.
Evidence and exception register
Reviewer, funder, board, or implementation owner
Every load-bearing claim is sourced or labelled as an assumption; missing checks are not shown as passes.
DD readiness assessment or counterparty DD findings
Verified and unsupported claim list
Severity-ranked issue log
Recommended remediation actions before submission or deal progression
Core Principle
A business plan is a collection of claims. Due diligence is the process of verifying whether those claims are true. Every number, every market assertion, every competitive advantage statement, and every management credential in a business plan is a potential DD investigation target.
Two directions of DD in business planning:
Inbound DD What investors, banks, and DFIs will do to you. Prepare for it.
Outbound DD What you must do on partners, suppliers, customers, and acquisition targets before committing.
A plan that has been through rigorous internal DD before submission is a fundamentally different document from one that hasn't.
When to Use
Mode A DD Readiness Preparation: Before submitting a business plan to any investor, bank, DFI, or grant committee. Use to identify what documentation is missing, what claims are unsupported, and what red flags must be addressed.
Mode B Outbound Due Diligence: Before entering a material business relationship a major supplier contract, joint venture, partnership, acquisition, or key hire. Use the OSINT and DD frameworks to systematically investigate the counterparty.
Mode C Business Plan DD Audit: Review a completed business plan section-by-section for claim supportability, documentation gaps, and investment-readiness. Produces a scored DD audit with priority action list.
Mode A: DD Readiness Prepare for Investor Scrutiny
The Investor's Investigation Map
When a professional investor, bank credit officer, or DFI analyst receives a business plan, their DD process follows a predictable sequence. Knowing what they investigate lets you prepare before they ask.
1. Commercial Due Diligence
What they verify:
Market size: Is the TAM/SAM/SOM calculation methodology credible? Are the data sources reputable and current?
Growth claims: Is the cited CAGR from a verifiable source? Does historical data support the forward projections?
Customer claims: Do named customers exist? Are contracts signed or verbal? What is the concentration does one customer represent >20% of revenue?
Competitive position: Is the stated competitive advantage real and durable, or asserted without evidence?
Revenue quality: Is revenue recurring/contracted, or one-off? Is the pipeline real?
Preparation actions:
All market size figures cite named sources with date and URL
Customer list prepared with: name, contract status, revenue contribution, tenure
No single customer >30% of revenue (or concentration risk explicitly addressed)
Mode B: Outbound Due Diligence (Investigating Others)
When Outbound DD is Required
Before any material business commitment:
Major supplier or subcontractor (>20% of COGS from one source)
Joint venture or partnership
Key hire (C-suite, technical lead, financial controller)
Business acquisition or asset purchase
Major customer (extending credit or entering long-term contract)
Investor or lender (reverse DD vetting who your capital partners are)
OSINT Investigation Framework (Hetherington)
Open-source intelligence (OSINT) is the systematic collection and analysis of publicly available information. For business due diligence, it is the first layer of investigation fast, low-cost, and often revealing.
Layer 1 Identity and Registration Verification
Business registration: confirm legal name, registration number, incorporation date, directors/shareholders use URSB (Uganda Registration Services Bureau) portal or equivalent national registry
Verify that the business is in good standing (not struck off, not under administration)
Cross-check trading name against registered name discrepancies are a red flag
Every claim has cited evidence; documents are available
4 Substantially supported
Key claims cited; minor gaps addressable before submission
3 Partially supported
Some claims verified; material gaps require work
2 Mostly asserted
Claims present but most unsupported; requires significant work
1 Not DD-ready
No supporting evidence; plan will not survive basic investor scrutiny
Minimum for bank submission: Average score 3.5, no section below 3.
Minimum for DFI / equity: Average score 4.0, no section below 3.5.
Execution Readiness Dimension
Due diligence also tests whether a plan can actually be executed. A well-written plan that the management team cannot execute is worthless investors call this the "implementation gap."
Execution Readiness Checklist
Every milestone in Section 13 has a named responsible person, not just "management"
Pre-launch regulatory steps (licences, permits, registrations) are in the timeline with realistic lead times
Every financial assumption in Section 10 can be traced to a specific action in Section 13
The team in Section 09 has the skills to execute every phase of the Section 13 plan
Cash flow projections account for the time lag between investment, operations launch, and revenue generation
Section 12 risk mitigations are built into the Section 13 timeline, not left as promises
Key supplier relationships have been initiated (quotes obtained, samples tested, agreements in principle)
The operations plan (Section 08) is consistent with the budget space, equipment, staffing match the numbers
Board governance or advisory structure is in place to hold management accountable post-funding
Generation Process
Identify the mode (A, B, or C) and the purpose (what funder? what counterparty?)
Mode A: Work through the 5 DD categories; produce a gaps list with priority actions and data room requirements
Mode B: Apply the 5-layer OSINT framework; produce a red flag report with recommendations
Mode C: Audit each of the 15 plan sections against the verification table; produce a DD Readiness Score with a priority action list
In all modes, check execution readiness using the checklist above
Quality Criteria
Every material claim in the plan has an identified evidence source
Data room structure is complete (Mode A) or red flags are documented (Mode B)
DD Readiness Score 3.5 (bank) or 4.0 (equity/DFI) before submission
Execution readiness checklist passes plan is executable, not just presentable
No section of the plan makes claims that contradict evidence elsewhere in the plan
References
references/osint-business-intelligence.md OSINT methodology; 5-layer investigation framework; competitor intelligence checklist; digital footprint assessment; red flag signals; Uganda/East Africa limitations with workarounds Source: Hetherington. Read for any outbound DD investigation, competitor research, or partner vetting.
references/due-diligence-ma-howson.md Full DD taxonomy (commercial, financial, legal, operational, tax, HR); quality of earnings; working capital analysis; data room requirements; management presentation standards; sell-side VDD; full DD checklists by type; investment readiness framework Source: Howson. Read for any equity investment, DFI funding, or business sale preparation.
references/operational-due-diligence-pe.md Operational DD standards for PE/impact investors; valuation scrutiny and defence; liquidity analysis; financial controls adequacy; documentation standards; governance requirements; PE-ready operations standard Source: Scharfman. Read when preparing for PE, impact investor, or DFI operational due diligence.
references/due-diligence-transactions-berkman.md Transaction DD checklists (financial, legal, commercial, people); pre-transaction preparation timeline; business plan verification table (claims to evidence map); execution readiness framework; 20 common DD deal-breakers Source: Berkman. Read for any business transaction requiring DD investment, acquisition, partnership, or major contract.
meta-bankability-scoring/SKILL.md CAMPARI 28-item checklist. Run alongside Mode A (DD Readiness) for bank submissions.
meta-market-validation/SKILL.md Mode B (Post-Plan Claim Auditing) complements Mode C of this skill. Run both for comprehensive pre-submission review.
11-funding-request/references/business-valuation-methods.md Valuation methodology defence (cross-reference with Scharfman's valuation scrutiny section).
12-risk-analysis/SKILL.md Risk register. Every DD finding that cannot be resolved before submission must appear in the risk register with a mitigation.
references/esmp-template.md Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) template and reference guide for DFI-funded projects. Contains: full 14-section document structure; AfDB 14 Material Actions with KPIs and deadlines; impact/mitigation matrix template; representative mitigation measures by impact type (dust, noise, waste, OHS, community safety, asbestos); environmental monitoring plan; 5-step GRM procedure with SEAH protocols; stakeholder engagement timeline; ESMP budget structure; Uganda NEMA/KCCA/DOSH regulatory requirements; 20-term glossary. Sources: AfDB, FAO/WB, UNDP, World Bank (2025).
Evidence Produced
Evidence
Format
Acceptance condition
Due-diligence findings register decision trace
Sources, calculations, assumptions, countercase, and selected action
A reviewer can trace the selected action and rejected alternatives to the cited inputs.
Exception record
Failed and not-assessed checks with owner and due action
The register exposes every unresolved exception that could lead to treating a missing document as satisfactory evidence.
Capability and Permission Boundaries
Default to read-only inspection while producing the due-diligence findings register. Read supplied records and run non-mutating checks; writing findings only; remediation needs separate authority is permitted only when requested. Do not publish, contact third parties, alter live systems, commit funds, or claim legal, tax, audit, valuation, ESG, or investment assurance without the owner's explicit authorisation and the appropriate reviewer.
Degraded Mode
If data room, scope, source provenance, and materiality threshold cannot be obtained, return a qualified due-diligence findings register covering only the checks that remain supportable. Leave this decision unresolved: which red flags block, condition, or permit the transaction. Record the evidence owner and next check; an inaccessible source, tool, or reviewer is never a pass.
Decision Rules
Decision condition
Action
Failure or risk avoided
Evidence is sufficient to decide: which red flags block, condition, or permit the transaction
Record the conclusion, source trail, owner, and review trigger in the due-diligence findings register.
Risk of treating a missing document as satisfactory evidence
Material evidence conflicts or remains uncertain
Test the red flag against an independent source or primary record and keep it open, with materiality stated, until the contradiction is resolved.
Selecting an option without resolving the decision-relevant uncertainty
Required evidence is missing: data room, scope, source provenance, and materiality threshold
Mark the decision on which red flags block, condition, or permit the transaction not assessed in the due-diligence findings register, and send it to the diligence lead and transaction sponsor.
Otherwise, the work risks treating a missing document as satisfactory evidence
Quality Standards
Accept the due-diligence findings register only when evidence is sufficient for this decision: which red flags block, condition, or permit the transaction. Assumptions and countercases remain visible, calculations and cross-references reconcile, and the reviewer can see how the recommendation addresses the risk of treating a missing document as satisfactory evidence.
Worked Example
A target reports a major customer as recurring revenue but supplies only unsigned purchase orders. Flag revenue quality, quantify materiality, and keep the finding open until contracts, invoices, and collections reconcile.
Risks are real, not cosmetic; mitigations are actionable
Risk register with owners and dates
Risks generic; no mitigations with owners
13 Implementation
Timeline is realistic; milestones are measurable
Dependency map; regulatory lead times included
Timeline ignores regulatory delays; no dependencies
14 AI Integration
AI claims are real tools, not buzzwords
Tool names; cost; use case specifics
AI section is aspirational, not operational
15 Appendices
All supporting documents present
Data room cross-reference
Missing: TCC, certificates, audited accounts
Read when any section of the plan involves construction, land use, natural resources, or DFI/development bank financing any funder following AfDB OS or IFC Performance Standards will require an ESMP.
