Most technology due diligence reports read like code reviews. They flag technical debt, architecture concerns, and security gaps — and then leave the deal team to figure out what any of it means for the price.

That gap is the actual job. A finding that isn't translated into dollar impact, remediation timeline, and deal-thesis risk isn't useful to a deal partner. It's a list.

PRISM™, the diligence framework used in every CCA technology review, scores five dimensions — portfolio fit, risk quantification, infrastructure and engineering, strategic data assets, and management execution capacity — and routes every finding into one of four buckets: Gate, Price, Thesis, or Lever. A Gate finding stops the deal until resolved. A Price finding gets negotiated into the offer. A Thesis finding changes what the deal is supposed to do. A Lever finding becomes part of the 100-day plan.

The distinction matters because not every technical risk is the same kind of risk. A target with thin test coverage and a target with an unresolved data-rights clause in a vendor contract both look like "technical debt" on a slide. One is a multi-month engineering investment. The other can unwind the deal's IP position entirely.

A PRISM review runs three to four weeks: document review, stakeholder interviews with the CEO, CTO or VP Engineering, CISO or IT lead, and a written deliverable with an executive summary built for a board, not an engineering team. The output is a 100-day technology roadmap that the operating team can execute on day one, not a binder that gets filed after close.