Looking for DD services or software?Beyond M&A →Lens →
Pillar guide · 9 min read

Tech Due Diligence Red Flags

Twelve technical diligence red flags that consistently predict repricings, walked deals, and post-close write-downs in SaaS and AI acquisitions.

Venture CapitalCorporate DevelopmentCorporate FinanceStrategic Buyer
HH

Written by Hutton Henry

Founder, Beyond M&A · Creator, Lens

Last reviewed 20 May 2026

How we research

Executive summary

Twelve patterns we see repeatedly in failed or repriced deals. None is automatically disqualifying; together they signal a target that will cost materially more to operate than the projections assume.

  • 01Single-engineer key-person risk on a production-critical system is the most predictive red flag of post-close repricing.
  • 02Cloud-cost discrepancies between disclosure and invoices precede 70% of post-close margin surprises we've audited.
  • 03A clean penetration test with one Critical finding is more dangerous than a busy report with everything Medium.

These are the twelve technical patterns we flag most often in buy-side diligence engagements. None is automatically disqualifying; together, they signal a target that will cost materially more to operate than the projections assume.

1. Key-person concentration on a production-critical system

The classic. One engineer, usually a co-founder, who owns a system that touches money or customer data. Mitigation costs are retention packages and 12-month parallel rebuilds.

2. Cloud-cost disclosure that doesn't match the invoices

Pull the actual cloud bills, not the management accounts' allocation. Discrepancies over 15% almost always trace to customer concentration the seller doesn't want disclosed.

3. A clean pen test with exactly one Critical

A real engineering team finds Medium and Low issues constantly. A pen test report with one Critical and nothing else is almost always scoped to hide the rest of the surface area.

4. AI training data without licence basis in writing

The seller's lawyers should already have this in a binder. If they don't, you'll be the buyer who finds it during post-close litigation.

5. Customer churn concentrated in the last quarter

Often a sign of a known-bad release, a competitor product launch, or a contract clause coming up for renewal that the seller is hoping you'll close before they have to renegotiate.

6. Deployment frequency below weekly

Healthy SaaS deploys daily. Below weekly in a 50+ engineer team is a strong signal of architectural debt that has slowed feature velocity to the point where the team has given up trying to ship faster.

7. Manual processes hidden in the runbook

Read the on-call runbook. Any step that says "ask Alex" or "rerun the script in /home/alex" is a key-person risk that doesn't appear on the org chart.

8. Vendor concentration above 40%

A foundation-model provider, payment processor, or hosting provider above 40% of variable cost is a single point of pricing failure. Sellers know this; they will not volunteer the concentration calculation.

9. Source-code repositories that are read-only

A target that has migrated to a new VCS but kept the old one read-only is hiding history. Insist on full history access or a written explanation for the migration.

10. Eval infrastructure that is one engineer's laptop

For AI startups specifically. If the evaluation harness lives on a single laptop, you cannot trust the model's reported performance, and you cannot replicate it post-close.

11. Customer support tickets that the engineering team doesn't see

Two-tier support where engineers are insulated from customer issues is correlated with the worst post-close NPS surprises we've audited.

12. A 'roadmap' that is just the last two quarters' missed features

A target whose roadmap is the carry-over of unshipped features is a target whose engineering team is not in control of its own delivery. The post-close investment to fix this is consistently underestimated.

Frequently asked

Should any of these kill a deal?+

Rarely on their own. Two or three together, especially when combined with founder-engineer dependency, usually justifies either a repricing or a structural protection — a deferred element of consideration, a retention package, or an indemnity carve-out.

How do we surface these efficiently?+

Architecture session first (90 minutes), then a focused evidence request driven by what surfaces. Reference calls last. Order matters — the architecture session redirects the rest of the diligence.

If you're reading this as…

Related guides

About the author

HH

Hutton Henry

Founder, Beyond M&A · Creator, Lens

Twenty years inside tech due diligence, integration and AI-native deal tooling. Built and exited tech businesses, led Tech DD on 150+ deals across PE, corp dev and strategic buyers, and now ships Lens — an AI workspace for diligence teams.

150+ Tech DD engagementsFounder, Beyond M&ACreator, Lens (AI for diligence)

Further reading on our network

Beyond M&A · Consultation

Bring this in front of the deal team

A senior partner will respond. We work pre-LOI through post-close on technology and integration workstreams.

We keep your details on file solely to respond. No marketing list.