Due diligence evidence: how to verify a business project’s claims
Editorial illustration
GURI Journal · Published 31 October 2026
A project can present three impressive documents that all repeat the same unsupported number. A pitch deck cites a management forecast, a website repeats the deck, and an introductory email links to both. The apparent agreement between sources adds little if they originate from one assumption.
Evidence review starts by identifying the claim, the entity and the period. GURI treats corroboration as a question-specific exercise: establish what a source can show, compare it with the claim being made and keep the remaining gap visible. More information is useful only when it improves that connection.
Establish whose business you are examining
Identify the legal entity using its full name, registration identifier and jurisdiction. Distinguish the brand, its owner, the operating company and any entity proposed for the transaction. Group figures should not be attributed to a subsidiary merely because both use the same logo.
Map important assets, contracts and revenue streams to their actual holders. If the proposed investment is in one entity while another owns the technology or customer contracts, that relationship needs specific examination. A statement that the businesses are “all part of the same group” does not establish the investor’s rights.
Record the date and scope of each source. A document can be authentic and still be too old, incomplete or directed at a different entity. Verification therefore concerns relevance as well as authenticity. These are separate questions and may require different evidence.
Use registers with an understanding of their role
Official registers are valuable starting points, but their contents and verification processes differ. Inspect the underlying filing where available, note its date and identify whether the information came from the company, an authority or another source. Do not assume that every field carries the same evidential weight.
In the UK, Companies House announced expanded powers from March 2024, including powers to query information, request evidence and address inaccurate records. It would be misleading to rely on a blanket historical statement that the registrar has no verification powers. Equally, a register entry is not an investment assessment of a specific project.
When a record appears inconsistent with the proposal, investigate the difference rather than immediately deciding which source is correct. Changes in timing, company structure or filing scope may explain it. If the explanation is not supported, preserve the discrepancy in the findings.
Trace revenue through a real transaction
For selected material transactions, connect the customer agreement, performance or delivery, invoicing and settlement information. Identify the customer and the entity that earned the revenue. Check how each document relates to the same transaction instead of matching totals from unrelated schedules.
Revenue and cash receipts need not occur at the same time. A difference is not automatically evidence of a false sale, but it should be explained through the applicable terms and records. The review should also show how outstanding amounts affect the project’s funding assumptions.
Agree the selection method and report its limits. Reviewing a sample does not establish that every transaction was examined. If the most important customer or an unusual transaction is excluded, explain why and what conclusion cannot be drawn as a result.
Reconcile definitions before comparing numbers
Check currency, units, period, entity coverage and the treatment of relevant items. A forecast for the next calendar year cannot be directly reconciled to a rolling twelve-month summary without understanding the periods. Similar labels can hide materially different definitions.
Preserve the original values and a transparent bridge for any adjustments. Do not replace one figure with another simply to make the schedules agree. An unexplained difference is a finding to resolve, not a formatting problem to remove.
Ask what the model treats as committed and what remains conditional. A proposed credit facility, an anticipated customer order or an unsigned lease should retain its actual status. These assumptions may be reasonable to explore, but they should not be silently converted into secured resources.
Separate physical existence from rights and capability
A visit may establish that machinery is present at a site. It does not alone prove ownership, freedom from restrictions, inclusion in the proposed transaction or performance under the forecast operating conditions. Those questions require appropriate documents and specialist methods.
Similarly, a software demonstration shows some functionality under the demonstrated conditions. It does not establish rights to all components or the ability to transfer those rights. Identify which claims the demonstration actually supports and send the remaining issues to the relevant specialists.
The same care applies to people. An interview can explain how a process works, but the speaker’s role determines what they are positioned to know. A sales manager may understand prospects without holding reliable evidence of cash collection. Match the question to the responsible function and then seek supporting records.
Test the model’s logic separately from its assumptions
Check how key inputs flow through the calculations. A change in timing should affect the related cash movements and costs where the model’s logic requires it. Manually entered totals or disconnected formulas can create the appearance of a scenario analysis without changing the result consistently.
Then examine the evidence behind the inputs. Historical performance, signed terms, market observations and management expectations provide different levels of support. Correct arithmetic does not demonstrate that a forecast price, volume or start date will occur.
Use clearly described scenarios to show dependence on uncertain conditions. Their purpose is to understand consequences, not to assign invented probabilities or guarantee a range of returns. State which assumptions were varied and which were held constant so the reader can interpret the result.
Keep contradictions and unresolved evidence visible
When two accounts conflict, first check whether they refer to the same date, entity and event. One person may be describing an order while another describes delivered goods. If the difference remains, record both accounts and the evidence needed to resolve it.
Do not treat a prompt explanation as a completed investigation. The closing note should identify what corroborated the explanation and whether it changes an earlier finding. If corroboration is unavailable, the conclusion must remain appropriately limited.
The final evidence record should let an authorised reviewer move from an important conclusion to its source without relying on someone’s memory. It should also show what was not established. That distinction protects the quality of the decision: a verified fact, a plausible assumption and an unanswered question should never look identical in the finished report.