Before you underwrite
the company,
underwrite the reality
beneath it.
AI companies can demonstrate models, benchmarks, simulations and prototypes. The harder question is whether the assumptions carrying those claims remain valid under real operating conditions, increased scale, integration complexity and consequence.
CB Advisory combines strategic AI oversight with specialized intrinsic technical due diligence to examine what a technology claims, what must be true for that claim to hold, what evidence supports it, where that evidence stops carrying, and what the organization should do next.
We do not diligence the story.
We diligence what has to be true
for the story to work.
A working demonstration does not establish unlimited validity.
Demonstrations are bounded by the conditions under which they were observed.
A benchmark does not establish structural viability.
Benchmark performance tells you what happened. It does not tell you what carries it.
A simulation does not prove the same assumptions survive deployment.
Technical due diligence examines the load-bearing assumptions beneath the claim.
Two disciplines.
One decision standard.
Strategic AI Oversight
Craig Bracken
CB Advisory
Focus Areas
Enterprise consequence
AI exposure
Governance
Decision architecture
Execution authority
Capital and deployment implications
Craig Bracken examines what the technical finding means to the organization making, funding, acquiring or deploying the technology. The assessment connects technical findings to governance, enterprise exposure, deployment authority, capital consequence and the decision in front of leadership.
Intrinsic Technical Due Diligence
Alexander Wolfgang Strüver
Founder, Science of Stability
Focus Areas
Reality and domain
Fundamental assumptions
Dependency reconstruction
Evidence strength
Structural realization
Stability and margin
Scaling boundaries
Failure propagation
Alexander Wolfgang Strüver examines what must remain structurally true for the proposed technical realization to continue operating as claimed, what evidence supports those assumptions, where their demonstrated validity ends, and what happens downstream when a load-bearing assumption fails.
Explore Science of Stability →The Decision Standard
Does the evidence support what the company is asking you to believe?
Craig examines the decision.
Alexander examines the technical reality carrying it.
Ten-Layer Assessment Framework
Science of Stability Intrinsic Technical Due Diligence Framework · V1.0 · Alexander Wolfgang Strüver
Evidence has a boundary.
Evidence establishes a carrying range. It does not establish unlimited validity.
Directly demonstrated under declared conditions.
Supported within evidence boundary.
Edge of the tested or defensibly established region.
Proceed only within declared margin.
Plausible continuation dependent on unverified assumptions.
Validate before material scaling decision.
Insufficient evidence to determine continued carrying capacity.
Do not present as validated capability.
Known point at which the assumption ceases to support the realization.
Restrict, redesign or reject the scaling path.
A technology may work today while depending on assumptions that do not remain valid under further scaling. The framework evaluates not only present viability but the carrying horizon of each critical assumption — the point at which the evidence structure stops justifying further extension.
Statistical confidence is not
execution authority.
AI can assist with inference and recommendation. When a system begins influencing consequential physical execution, technical admissibility and execution authority require a different standard.
Reality-Bound Computing™ and associated technical concepts attributed to Alexander Wolfgang Strüver / Science of Stability. Intellectual property of Science of Stability. No ownership claimed by CB Advisory.
AI INFERENCE
Learn · Predict · Recommend
Statistical pattern matching across training distribution.
REALITY BOUNDARY
Where inference meets consequence
The point at which an AI-generated output begins to influence a physical, operational or institutional outcome.
PHYSICAL / TECHNICAL ADMISSIBILITY
What is actually possible?
Independent of model confidence: does the proposed action remain within the boundaries of what is physically, technically and structurally realizable?
DEDUCTIVE CONTROL
What action is technically permissible?
Structured determination of whether execution conditions are satisfied — not inferred from model output, but derived from verified domain conditions.
EXECUTION AUTHORITY
Act · Refuse · Block
The final gate. A layer that can be bypassed is not an execution boundary.
Technical truth is not
the final decision.
CB Advisory converts technical findings into institutional consequence.
TECHNICAL FINDING
What the intrinsic assessment reveals about structural viability, evidence, and boundary.
CAPITAL EXPOSURE
What does the finding mean for capital committed, capital at risk, and future deployment cost?
DEPLOYMENT EXPOSURE
What does the finding mean for operational scale, integration complexity, and downstream consequence?
GOVERNANCE CONSEQUENCE
Which assumptions carry board-level, regulatory, or institutional accountability?
SCALING DECISION
Does the current evidence justify the proposed next stage of investment or deployment?
EXECUTION AUTHORITY
Who holds the decision, under what conditions, and with what evidence on record?
Assessment Output
Private Capital
Investment decisions where technical assumptions carry capital consequence.
Family Offices
Direct investments requiring independent technical scrutiny beyond advisor narratives.
Boards
Governance accountability for AI systems influencing institutional operations.
Enterprise Buyers
Technology acquisitions where vendor claims require independent structural review.
Strategic Acquirers
M&A technical due diligence where hidden assumption risk affects deal structure.
Technology Investors
Decisions requiring evidence boundary analysis beyond demonstrated performance.
Regulated Organizations
AI deployments where compliance does not automatically establish technical admissibility.
High-Consequence Operators
Organizations where the cost of a failed assumption is material or irreversible.
The claim is easy to hear.
The assumptions beneath it
are harder to see.
Technical due diligence is designed for decisions where the cost of being wrong is materially higher than the cost of asking harder questions first.
Specialized intrinsic technical assessment conducted in collaboration with Science of Stability / Alexander Wolfgang Strüver.
alexanderstruver.com →