PUBLIC
Orientation
Website, Executive Overview, Evidence & Validation Brief, Evidence Map, project status, methodology and publication history.
Decision question:Is the substance relevant enough to justify a qualified discussion?
STRATEGIC REVIEW PROCESS
Understand first, then review – and disclose sensitive core substance only when the review purpose actually requires it.
A professional process should achieve two things at the same time: give the prospective institution enough substance to prepare a robust decision while avoiding unnecessary early disclosure of proprietary core logic. Information depth therefore increases with the seriousness and precision of the review question.
SIX STAGES
From first orientation to a potential strategic decision
The stages are not a rigid contractual model. They describe a sensible order for reviewing relevance, evidence, rights and sensitive substance.
With each stage, the following increase:Information depth ↑Confidentiality / IP sensitivity ↑
QUALIFICATION
Strategic fit
Use case, institution type, technical environment, review priorities and the potential role of the Framework are defined more precisely.
Decision question:Which layer should actually be reviewed, and for what purpose?
CONFIDENTIALITY
NDA & targeted deepening
For serious interest, selected confidential materials can be released without opening the entire core IP.
Decision question:Does the documented state justify technical or methodological review?
TECHNICAL REVIEW
Reproducibility & architecture
The whitepaper, selected test definitions, architecture, known limitations and – once completed – replication and validation reports are reviewed against specific questions. Once the operating validation layer exists, clearly versioned live-execution and risk reports may be added as a separate evidence source.
Decision question:Can the relevant substance be understood, reproduced and mapped into the target environment?
DUE DILIGENCE
Rights, data, code, security & handover
The questions that performance charts cannot answer are reviewed: IP chain, data rights, third-party components, security, documentation, open risks and transferability.
Decision question:Is the asset legally, technically and organisationally defined well enough to structure a transaction or partnership?
STRATEGIC DECISION
Partnership, investment, acquisition or option
Only at this stage are structure, rights, scope, handover, founder involvement, potential exclusivity and economic terms negotiated in detail.
Decision question:Which structure appropriately reflects demonstrated value and remaining risk?
INFORMATION BY REVIEW STAGE
More material only where it answers a specific question.
A data room should not become a completeness theatre. Each released document should have a clear review purpose, and its evidence status should remain visible.
| Stage | Typical material | Decision supported |
|---|---|---|
| Public | Website, Executive Overview, Evidence Brief, Fact Sheet | Basic understanding and strategic relevance |
| Qualified | Project status, targeted Q&A, selected methodology | Review focus and potential use case |
| Under NDA | confidential whitepaper, selected architecture and source-state material | Substance, limitations and technical fit |
| Technical review | reproducible test definitions and - once completed - replication, intraday, cost and APS reports; later, where applicable, versioned live-execution reports | Evidence quality and technical viability |
| Due diligence | data/IP rights, code/dependency review, security, documentation, handover package | Transferability, risks and transaction readiness |
| Transaction | defined IP scope, rights, handover, involvement, warranties and boundaries | Contractual and economic structure |
NO DATA-ROOM THEATRE
A file does not become evidence merely because it sits in a folder called “Due Diligence”.
A replication report exists only after replication has been performed. An intraday report exists only after event ordering has been tested on appropriate data. A security review is complete only once it has actually taken place.
The review process therefore separates existing source material from future Version 2 reports. A reviewer should always be able to distinguish a historical finding, current evidence, an open review item and a development objective.
Document rule
A new data or calculation state does not silently overwrite an older finding. Material changes create a new version, and significant deviations are documented. Editorial approval does not replace a passed validation gate.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE & POSSIBLE STRUCTURES
The preferred target is a fully transferable operating unit - without pre-negotiating economic terms publicly.
The long-term target state is designed so that complete acquisition of the built company can be considered where strategic fit exists. Partnership or minority structures may still be useful during development. Purchase price, valuation, ownership percentage, exclusivity and timing are deliberately not fixed publicly.
No economic pre-commitment: this website does not promise an ownership percentage, valuation, purchase price, exclusivity or binding exit date. If no suitable transaction emerges, the operating unit can continue to be used and monetised through other routes; that alternative provides economic optionality but is not an equal-priority first-phase development programme. See strategic classification →
TRANSACTION READINESS
What a professional acquisition process eventually has to clarify
Even an excellent backtest is not a transferable asset if ownership, rights, dependencies and handover are unclear. The following issues therefore belong in later due diligence.
IP perimeter
Which rules, documents, data models, software components, marks and know-how areas are actually part of the transaction?
Data & third-party rights
Which data may be transferred, reproduced or used in production? Which libraries, licences or services remain third-party components?
Technical state
Which components are reference prototypes, which are replicated, which are production-oriented and which remain development objectives?
Evidence state
Which statements are documented, independently reproduced, tested on new data or still open?
Handover
Which documentation, installation and operating material, test cases and knowledge-transfer steps are required so the core can continue without permanent founder dependency?
Boundaries & liability
Which known limitations, open work, warranty issues and regulatory responsibilities need to be contractually separated?
QUALIFIED DISCUSSION
The most useful first step is a clearly formulated review question.
Which institution, which potential use case and which two or three points should be reviewed first? That information allows the discussion to begin at the appropriate documentation and confidentiality level.