Resources

Technology due diligence is often treated as a risk-screening exercise, yet many post-acquisition execution failures stem from issues it fails to surface. Traditional diligence evaluates technology in its current state, but rarely assesses how systems, teams, and decisions behave under pressure. In regulated and fintech environments, this gap shows up quickly through slowed delivery, integration friction, and rising compliance overhead. Architecture, decision-making structure, regulatory design, and knowledge concentration ultimately determine how fast and safely a business can evolve post-close. When technology due diligence is used to inform value creation planning rather than just deal approval, execution risk becomes clearer and early momentum is easier to protect.

Cyber risk accountability has moved to senior leadership without a corresponding decision logic for prioritisation, risk acceptance, or explanation under uncertainty. In distributed systems, fragmented signals and weak synthesis make it difficult to link technical risk to business impact in a defensible way. Without a safe harbor for informed judgment, outcome bias pushes decisions toward visible mitigation rather than deliberate trade-offs. The result is an accountability gap in which cyber risk is experienced as personal exposure rather than as an organisationally supported decision-making discipline.

At the board level, digital resilience has become less about preventing incidents and more about how decisions are judged once a breach has occurred. Because scrutiny is retrospective, controls, audits and frameworks offer limited protection unless they clearly inform deliberate board-level judgments about risk, trade-offs and acceptable impact. When expert views diverge, reasonable care is assessed through how uncertainty was handled and revisited, not whether the “right” answer was chosen. Regulation increases the visibility of these judgments without removing ambiguity, reinforcing that digital resilience ultimately depends on board judgment under uncertainty.

Across private equity-owned companies, AI-driven efficiency is shaped less by tool choice than by operating discipline. Structural complexity, architectural clarity, and ownership determine whether AI reduces friction or adds to it. Initiatives that succeed are narrowly scoped, validated early, and embedded in existing workflows with clear accountability. Those who fail tend to scale ambition before proving impact. In this context, AI is most effective when treated as a lever for execution quality rather than a standalone transformation.

Cloud cost has quietly become one of the hardest problems fintech engineering teams face at scale. Not because teams lack visibility or tooling, but because cost is increasingly shaped by architectural choices made under pressure to move fast, stay compliant, and design for growth.

I'll be honest: when I first started working with AI coding assistants, I thought we were on the verge of making code quality debates obsolete. Why obsess over clean architecture and test coverage when AI could just churn out whatever we needed? I was spectacularly wrong. After spending the last year working with these tools in production environments, and seeing both the incredible wins and the spectacular failures, I've come to realize something fundamental: