Fundamentals: what it is and the problem it solves
It's a proprietary framework we built to assess team execution capability during acquisitions, investments, or valuations.
Using objective, auditable evidence, we identify risks and opportunities tied to the target company's human capital — complementing the other workstreams in the due diligence process.
Our framework helps investors reduce information asymmetry by providing a structured view of the execution capability of the people behind the business.
Many companies carry execution-related risks that never show up in financial, legal, or tax analysis.
The most common risks we identify include:
- Inflated seniority levels
- Weak execution capability
- Over-reliance on key people
- Limited scaling capacity
- Critical execution bottlenecks
- Misalignment between role and actual execution capability
- Future restructuring needs
Grilo's methodology helps investors identify risks and opportunities that can affect the target's valuation and its future execution capability.
Standard due diligence typically covers financial, legal, tax, and accounting matters. Grilo adds a complementary layer of evidence by assessing the target's current team execution capability.
Our methodology helps answer questions like:
- Can the team sustain the expected growth?
- Do seniority levels match observed capability?
- Is there excessive dependency on key people?
- Does technical level match the role being performed?
- Are there risks that could compromise execution after the deal closes?
In many companies, a significant share of the value is tied up in the execution capability of their teams.
Without structured validation, investors can end up taking on risks such as:
- Weak execution capability
- Critical dependency on key people
- Urgent hiring needs
- Post-deal restructuring
- Lost productivity
- Integration challenges
Technical Talent Due Diligence reduces this uncertainty through objective, auditable evidence.
Many decisions are still made based on subjective impressions.
Grilo's methodology turns scattered signals — interviews, track records, public information, and hands-on validation — into objective, structured, auditable evidence.
This enables more consistent, comparable, data-driven decisions.
Auditable evidence is evidence built on objective, documented, traceable criteria.
It enables:
- Comparability
- Transparency
- Standardization
- Analytical consistency
- Greater confidence in decision-making
Methodology and evaluation process
The methodology is structured in five steps:
- Mapping the Operating Structure
- Public Technical Score
- Structured Interview
- Practical Technical Validation
- Analytical Roll-Up & Executive Report
Each step adds a new layer of evidence, reducing subjectivity and increasing confidence in the diagnosis.
Grilo assesses:
- Operating structure
- Seniority levels
- Alignment between role and execution capability
- Technical quality of the professionals
- Professional track record
- Public evidence
- Problem-solving ability
- Team execution capability
- Dependency on specific talent
- Technical risk by area, seniority, and function
- Organizational technical risk
It's one of the layers in Grilo's methodology, used to analyze public information about each professional — track record, experience, education, certifications, and other signals of competency.
The goal is to measure the initial fit between the role held and the public signals of technical capability.
The Jump Score is a proprietary index Grilo created to estimate the likelihood that a professional is open to new opportunities.
It helps investors flag potential retention risks after the deal closes.
Each professional is assessed against standardized criteria, tailored to their role, seniority, responsibilities, and any gaps flagged by the Public Technical Score.
The assessment combines structured interviews, double validation (human and AI), and a final review, so nothing important gets missed.
This step measures whether the observed execution capability matches the expected role and seniority.
Depending on the profile, this can involve reviewing public code repositories through custom technical challenges, or structured questionnaires. Both approaches test real-world scenarios and problem-solving, building on the two previous steps.
Yes.
It relies on multiple independent layers of evidence, standardized criteria, double validation, and analytical review to reduce subjectivity.
Organizational technical risk emerges from the convergence of operating structure, public evidence, structured interviews, practical validation, seniority distribution, dependency on key people, and consistency between role and observed capability.
The stronger the convergence across these evidence layers, the higher our confidence in the diagnosis.
Scope and coverage
No.
While there's a deep layer built specifically for software engineering, the methodology applies to a wide range of technical and strategic roles.
Each role is assessed based on the nature of its output and execution capability.
The methodology is built for investment funds, venture capital and private equity firms, family offices, companies going through an acquisition, and any organization where human capital drives a large share of value.
No.
It can be applied to any organization whose value depends significantly on the specialized knowledge and execution capability of its people. While it was originally built for tech- and knowledge-intensive companies, it isn't limited to that segment.
No.
The methodology applies to both domestic and cross-border deals.
Yes.
While built to support due diligence, companies can also use it internally to assess their own teams' current execution capability, support restructuring, track team evolution over time, and inform performance, goal-setting, and OKR initiatives.
It depends on the goals of the engagement, and can include leadership, specialists, managers, developers, and any professionals considered critical to the company's execution capability.
No.
Our focus is assessing human capital and the execution capability of the people behind the business.
Infrastructure, security, architecture, compliance, and governance should be covered by specialized complementary diligence.
Technology, AI and data access
Yes.
AI works as a complementary layer for analysis, standardization, flagging inconsistencies, and analytical roll-up.
No.
The methodology combines AI and human assessment to increase consistency and scale.
No.
When the technical assessment involves code review, we design custom challenges based on the inputs gathered in the previous steps of the process. Each professional publishes their solution to a public GitHub repository, and we run a full review of that repository to check how well it matches the challenge and assess their current execution capability. We never access the company's or its clients' private repositories at any point.
Deliverables and decision impact
A report with a consolidated executive opinion, including the Global Score and scores by assessment layer, an executive view, breakdowns by area, function, and seniority, top and bottom performers, and a detailed SWOT analysis covering the strengths, weaknesses, risks, and opportunities tied to the target's execution capability.
Yes.
It helps identify technical risks and opportunities, supporting strategic analysis during the investment process.
Yes.
The methodology surfaces mismatches between stated seniority, observed capability, technical complexity, and role requirements.
We generate evidence on team execution capability, reducing information asymmetry around human capital and surfacing risks and opportunities before the deal closes.
In other words, engagements using our framework show whether the team's current execution capability is strong enough to sustain the business after the deal closes.
Yes.
The results can support integration planning, retention of critical talent, team reorganization, and risk mitigation.
When needed, the work can also be complemented by specialized integration partners who handle planning and follow-through during the post-deal period.
No.
Our methodology complements the other workstreams in the due diligence process by adding evidence on the target's execution capability.
Grilo combines a structured methodology, hands-on technical assessment, artificial intelligence, and objective, auditable evidence into executive-level intelligence — turning execution capability into better investment decisions.
How to engage and who we are
The process starts with understanding the context of the deal, defining the scope, and mapping the areas, roles, and professionals to be assessed.
Timing depends on the number of professionals involved, the complexity of the deal, and the desired depth of the assessment.
The team brings together experience in technology, strategy, artificial intelligence, organizational management, and corporate operations.
Visit https://grilo.capital.
Didn't find what you were looking for? Talk to Grilo.