Separate grounded AI value levers from generic 'AI-enabled' claims.
Illustrative memo structure
> This is a sample document that shows the format of a diligence memo. It is not a claim about a real company.
Investment question
Can this company create differentiated value from AI within 12 months, or are the current claims mostly generic automation upside?
Headline findings
- Grounded near-term lever — one workflow shows repeated pain, reachable evidence, and a clear owner.
- Strategic upside — there may be a reusable capability, but it depends on rights to data and repeatable operating loops.
- Core uncertainty — management still needs to prove whether the workflow evidence is broad enough for portfolio-scale rollout.
Management questions that would most change the decision
- Which customers or internal teams already feel the pain strongly enough to sponsor a pilot?
- What data can the company actually access, retain, and evaluate?
- Which operator owns rollout, approval boundaries, and post-pilot adoption?
- Where would a failed pilot create legal, customer, or operational downside?
Portfolio comparison lens
| Lens | Company A | Company B |
|---|---|---|
| Workflow pain clarity | High | Medium |
| Proprietary evidence access | Medium | Low |
| Defensibility potential | High | Medium |
| First 100-day readiness | Medium | High |
First 100 days
- Confirm one high-value workflow and the owner who can sponsor it.
- Request representative data, approval constraints, and current process evidence.
- Reject or demote generic AI narratives that cannot survive the evidence review.
- Produce a focused pilot plan only for ideas that remain well supported.
What this document is for
The memo helps a deal or operating team challenge the claim, not merely admire it. It should expose where the company has a real path to AI value creation and where further management evidence is required.