Technical Due Diligence, on the buy side and for the seller's side

You review the building. Not the folder tree.

The data room arrived last night. Permits, maintenance records, expert reports, drawings, scans in every quality, and half of it is missing. The delivery date has been fixed for three weeks.

Only if you want it, an excerpt from a completed project, under confidentiality.

Recording from the application, demo project.

Where a number comes from is stated at the number.

Day 1
The list of missing documents is ready, and the Q&A goes out.
Learned from the Q&A lists your firm has already written.

The finding that was not in the scope of services

The change of use was written by hand in the fourth annex.

AIMI goes at every page that lies in the data room, the fourth annex of a lease included, and what somebody wrote by hand in the margin included as well. There it said the use had been changed. A permit for it was nowhere.

The reviewer had that point in the Q&A on the first day instead of days later. In building law terms a good deal was amiss at this asset, and no document carried that as a heading.

And when there is nothing there, AIMI says so plainly: the report never says not present where not found is meant.

“That was not in my scope of services at all. I was completely astonished that it found the change of use.”

A reviewer, on the handwritten note in the fourth annex of a lease

What is still missing for the Grundbuch chapter

Reference Status Source
Grundbuch extract, less than six months old Missing your own criterion
Bewilligungsurkunde for the easement Missing named in Abteilung II
Release of charges by the lender Partly missing data room index
Register of Baulasten On file data room, folder 04
Reconstructed after the application, with invented documents. No real customer data.

How it runs today, without AIMI

Three evenings every reviewer knows

These are not the exceptions. This is the normal case inside a few days of review time.

Dozens of land-register folios, shortly before Christmas

Mergers, partitions, and easements that changed their beneficiary along the way.

What an overlooked right of way costs later

Abteilung II, section II of the German Grundbuch where encumbrances are entered, reads like a family tree nobody ever wrote down. The notarised deed that everything refers to is not in the data room, and inspecting the Grundakte, the register file that holds those deeds, takes weeks, not days.

An overlooked right of way ends up in a report later, and your name is under that report. It does not stand there as your opinion. It stands there as your review.

The scan that is missing every second page

Somebody worked through the folder at the copier and caught only every second page.

What else the data room suffers from

Then the crooked phone photos, the copy of a copy, the coffee stain across the signature, the missing stamp. The data room looks complete and is not, and it happens in the middle of a document, not on the document list.

You notice it when you read, and the reading happens late. Until then there is a tick in your list.

The Q&A round that eats a week

You review, you write the list, you wait. And what comes back is missing something again.

Why the timing costs more than the finding

The data room arrives late, half of it is missing, and the delivery date has been fixed for three weeks. One of your few days is gone before you have properly started.

What goes into the Q&A on the first day costs a line. What surfaces in week two costs a round.

”On the train I want to look at the project analysis dashboard on the iPad and understand straight away: what kind of property is this? Where do I have to look? Where should I ask more closely? Which documents do I have for that?”

A reviewer, on what he needs on the way to the site inspection

The other direction

You review on the buy side. And sometimes on behalf of the seller.

Vendor Due Diligence: the same work, the other direction

In a technical Vendor Due Diligence, TVDD for short, the seller is the vendor and commissions the review: you work for the seller's side, with the same list of missing documents, the same site inspection, the same report, only earlier.

Why this is a question of price

The standing data room has grown over years, everything was thrown into it, and nobody knows what is missing: which maintenance was never documented, which permit exists only as a copy, which certificate was never supplied.

What the other side writes down as a red flag pushes the purchase price. AIMI finds what is missing, so that the better price is the one achieved.

An asset manager, on a finding he was able to close before the sale: “We would have had to discuss that in the price. Luckily we found it beforehand and were able to resolve it.”

In four steps

From the data room to the signature

Your process stays your process. It begins with what can overturn the review.

Step 01

Connect the data room

ZIP, SharePoint or drag and drop. Named in your own system.

Step 02

Missing documents on the first day

Three stages: document there, requirement met, reference on file.

Step 03

Site inspection with photos and notes

Photos and notes flow back, name plates are read.

Step 04

The report in your template

Your chapters, your tables, every statement with its source.

What comes off your desk

Six places where the searching stops

Once it has been taught them, AIMI works to your firm's review requirements. Reviewing, assessing and signing stays your work.

The list of missing documents, on the first day

AIMI checks against your list in three stages: is the document there, does it meet the requirement, and is what it refers to on file.

How the list goes out

Is the Grundbuchauszug, the extract from the German land register, recent enough? And is the notarised deed it refers to attached? AIMI learns from the Q&A lists of your earlier projects and assembles the new one in the same system, as an Excel file to send on.

It goes out only once you have released it. Whatever is supplied afterwards, AIMI checks against the same list automatically, without anyone reviewing everything a second time. Every iteration you do not have to wait for is one more day for the review itself.

You know the asset before you get off the train

On the way to the site inspection the project analysis sits on the tablet: what kind of asset this is and where you should look more closely.

What the project analysis is made of

The Grundbuch with its easements and mergers down to the deed it refers to, building and planning law including the Nebenbestimmungen, the conditions attached to a permit, contaminated land and pollutants, unexploded ordnance, listed-building status, flooding, tenants and the stacking plan.

On top of that official data and historical Landesbauordnungen, the building codes of the German federal states, by date and by state, because a building is governed by the code of its own year and not by today's. Every finding stays editable, and every one shows its source.

AIMI reports gaps, not only content

Missing pages, a missing signature, a missing stamp: what arrives unreadable stands in the list as unreadable, not as reviewed.

Why that counts in the report

Most tools read what is there. AIMI additionally records the condition of the document itself, down to the copy where a signature disappears under a stain.

That is why the report never says not present where not found is meant. What stays visible is which page a person has to pick up.

The site inspection comes back, and not as a photo folder

What you observed on your walk through is placed on the asset, name plates are read, and where the contract and the name plate give different construction years, both stand side by side.

What happens to contradictions

The condition from the data room and the condition from the site sit on the same asset. Contradictions are not smoothed over, they are shown with their date and their source.

Resolving them is yours. AIMI does not decide which record applies.

The equipment register becomes the CapEx

CapEx broken down along DIN 276, the German standard that groups building costs, costed with the assumptions from your own earlier reports.

Why tools fail at this point

Cost structure is rarely an arithmetic problem and almost always a question of provenance: whose assumptions, which service lives, which breakdown. DIN 276 supplies the breakdown and nothing else. You set how it is applied in your house, AIMI assigns each item to a cost group and shows every assignment. Market averages you would overwrite anyway.

AIMI therefore learns from your earlier CapEx records. Areas come from official 3D data where that is possible.

The report sounds like your firm

No freewheeling language model, but a structured fill-in inside your template: your chapter order, your tables, your logo.

What AIMI does not do here

Write freely. From your sample reports AIMI does not learn what your firm means, it learns how your firm writes: the chapter order, the sentence construction, the table format and the phrases that always read the same way at your desk.

Export one to one to Word, Excel or PowerPoint, with the logo, the comments and the mark-ups. A finding that is missing is caught on the read through. A finding tied to the wrong source is not caught, because it reads correctly. That is why every statement carries its source underneath.

Two projects by the same reviewer

The draft report stood on the same day, the site inspection included.

An old site with many interlocking cadastral parcels: about thirty minutes scanning the results, the Q&A out, the walk through done, the report written in three hours. On the second project the draft was finished as he stepped off the train. Reading it back against the sources and the sign off inside his firm come on top of that.

”I actually only wanted to test whether it could do it at all.”

A reviewer, before he opened the project analysis for the first time

Which of the suggested questions he kept

Four out of five questions he took over directly, the rest he wrote himself, a few he deleted. That is the decision of one reviewer, on one project, on one day, and it is not a hit rate.

On the second project he was prepared on the way to the site inspection, loaded the photos afterwards and finished the report on the train. The next morning he took his daughter to nursery without hurrying, which he had not expected to manage again that week.

Where AIMI stops

Six sentences we would rather say now than in the demo

AIMI does not assess

Whether an easement costs you part of the price or stays a footnote is your decision. For every finding AIMI shows the place in the original.

AIMI does not sign

Every statement a machine produces belongs against its source before it goes into the report. That is your professional work, and AIMI puts the source under every statement for it.

An unreadable scan does not become a readable document

AIMI tells you, with the file name and the page number, which page a person has to pick up.

A document that was read wrongly does not report itself

The unreadable page announces itself, and that is the easy case. The hard one is the page that was read and understood wrongly.

How you catch that one

That is why every statement carries its source, highlighted in the original document, and why there is no summary without a source. A misread finding shows up when you open the source, not at sign off. That is what the jump into the original being one click away and not three is there for.

We promise no coverage rate per document here. What works today and what is still being built we put to you in writing before you decide.

AIMI quotes no hit rate across projects

We would only have it from the projects that went well. Run AIMI against a project you have already closed, and you have your own number.

AIMI does not take the diligence off your hands

The review stays your work, and whoever stands behind the report stays the same person. AIMI is a tool inside that review and steps into your place at no point.

And what it costs

No annual contract and no user licences: whether ten people have access or two costs nothing extra. You pay for what is processed, from a balance you set in advance.

A mandate that runs alongside for years costs what it reads, not what it stores. We give you the order of magnitude for your case after a short look inside, in the first conversation and not after three meetings.

Before the first document goes up

What your IT asks first

What is evidenced stands here. Where we do not have the evidence, that stands here just the same.

Where do the models run, and who sees our documents?

Exclusively in European data centres, separated by company. The data centres are operated by Microsoft, AWS and Google; which contract carries which commitment we put to your IT in writing. Your templates and your assumptions stay inside your company. No model is trained on your data, neither ours nor a provider's.

Has this been through a corporate IT department before?

Once in full: a group of companies with several hundred employees, every approval completed. Whether we may put you in touch there is that firm's decision. Ask us, and we will ask them. What we cannot evidence does not stand here. What your IT needs for its approval we put in writing before you decide.

How long does the setup take?

Connect the data room, the reading runs in the background, and it is set up in a day. How long an approval takes inside your organisation is decided by your IT and not by us.

What your IT needs for this does not belong on a website, it belongs in a document: processing agreement, sub-processors, where the models run, how companies are kept apart, deletion periods. You get that before the first document, not after it.

European data centres Processing agreement under Art. 28 Separated by company No model training on your data
And where does the next generation learn the craft?

The concern is a fair one: whoever never had to search learns nothing either. So the junior does not get a finished answer, he gets the finding with its source next to it. He sees why a document is missing, and he sees it against your firm's review requirements.

The judgement he goes on practising himself. It simply no longer takes three weeks before he arrives at the judgement, and he passes more cases in the same time. What AIMI expressly does not replace is the senior sitting next to him.

How does the first project start, and how does it come into the firm?

To begin with, your report template, a handful of sample reports and one old Q&A list are enough. Connecting the data room takes minutes, the reading runs in the background, and it is set up in a day. The most honest way to see it is on a project you have already closed: you know what is in it, and you see what gets found and what gets reported as missing.

After that it holds across the whole firm. Projects have visibility levels and a project lead role, teams share the same project state, and what your firm teaches AIMI stays inside your company.

We already have AI assistants in the firm, why another one?

A chat window always sounds convincing, and a single document is something every tool reads. A data room, though, is not a conversation, and what nobody asks about is what nobody finds there.

A managing director who already uses tools of that kind: “We have AI assistants in use, but only for single documents. That runs into its limits quickly. I have a 2,000 page structural report, and I had to reshape it laboriously.”

AIMI therefore works through a fixed review path, chapter by chapter, and marks the places where it finds nothing as well. This was not tried out in a laboratory: critical engineers read the results against their own work in development partnerships.

Under the report stands your name.

With AIMI it stands there differently: what was readable has been read, what was not is named as such, and it is finished before the date started pressing. Take a project you have already closed and compare.

Possible as a pilot inside a running project as well, under confidentiality and with the documents for your IT up front.

15 minutes on the phone

Leave your email address and we get back to you to arrange a time. No documents needed for that.