Intake
We agree the question, the important parts of the system, the assessment criteria, and the required evidence. For re-underwriting, the brief records the product's intended job and the owner's thesis.
The instrument
One instrument. Every product is built on it.
Big Lever AI provides software intelligence: repeatable analysis of code, configuration, and development history, translated into verified findings and their implications for value, risk, and change.
The instrument combines an array of publicly available software-analysis tools with an execution harness and analysis layer developed in-house. The tools are selected to suit the codebase and the examination. The instrument examines the code, change history, dependencies, and committed configuration, reconciles the results, investigates disagreements and gaps, and produces findings with their evidence attached.
The same instrument governs execution, reconciliation, and confirmation across those tool selections. The harness makes the measurement record repeatable. Our analysis establishes what the findings mean for the question commissioned. Every material finding is reproduced by an independent method and confirmed by a named reviewer before delivery.
AI Tech ReportWhat does the acquirer inherit, and where does the software create leverage or exposure?
AI Re-underwritingCan the software defend its position against AI substitution, and what technical response is justified?
01
What the instrument measures
The examination covers software condition across the following classes. The agreed scope identifies the parts of the system the decision depends on and the inputs needed to examine them.
AI-written code on critical surfaces
Changes marked as AI-written or AI-assisted, the important parts of the system they touched, and their ownership and review trail.
Architecture drift
Components that change together more often than their intended boundaries suggest.
Technical debt
Complexity and duplication against published thresholds.
Test quality
Whether tests on critical parts of the system check behavior rather than merely execute code.
Scalability
Code patterns that constrain growth in load. The examination reads the implementation; load testing is a separate activity.
Credentials and secrets
Passwords, keys, and tokens in the code and its history.
Known vulnerabilities
Dependencies with published security advisories. Reachability in the system is assessed separately when commissioned.
Malicious dependencies
Components matching a maintained list of known-malicious packages.
Authorization enforcement
Whether access to records is checked against the caller's authorization.
Injection and data flow
Paths from untrusted input to sensitive operations.
Sensitive-data exposure
Paths by which regulated or secret data can reach logs, storage, or responses without protection.
Infrastructure configuration
Failed checks in committed build and deployment configuration.
IP and licensing
Licenses and associated obligations on third-party components shipped with the product.
Key-person concentration
Concentration of recorded contribution and ownership across components.
AI-model dependence
Reliance on third-party hosted models, identified in source and dependencies.
The question and agreed criteria determine how the findings are interpreted and organized.
02
How an engagement proceeds
Access
The client provides an agreed repository mirror and the associated artifacts. Access, handling, and retention arrangements are established before analysis.
Measurement
The harness runs the configured examination across each defined population. Missing inputs and method limits are recorded against the measurements they affect.
Reconciliation
The analysis layer brings the results together, follows disagreements and gaps to ground, and retains the source of each finding.
Confirmation
Every material finding is reproduced by an independent method and confirmed by a named reviewer.
Delivery
The findings are presented with the product's conclusions, relevance, and evidence. Coverage and unresolved questions remain visible.
03
Reconciliation turns separate results into one account.
Each tool sees the code through its own method. A dependency inspection, a source-code check, and an examination of change history can reveal different parts of the same issue. Agreement can strengthen the evidence. Disagreement prompts investigation.
raw signals examined across the corpus.
findings, each connected to its supporting evidence.
findings from 199,359 signals.
04
What a finding carries
Status
Confirmed findings have their measurement and confirmation on record. Unconfirmed signals remain visible, are sized separately, and are excluded from confirmed exposure totals.
Relevance
The finding's importance to the commissioned question: acquisition exposure, technical defensibility, remediation priorities, or an applicable control requirement.
Evidence and location
The affected code, configuration, dependency, or history; the measured population; the confirming method; and the named reviewer.
Implication
The likely consequence for the engagement, with the reasoning behind it. The Tech Report connects findings to acquisition economics; re-underwriting assesses bearing on technical viability.
Repair estimate · effort at the incumbent team's demonstrated pace
S
Under one engineer-week
M
One to under four engineer-weeks
L
Four to under twelve engineer-weeks
XL
Twelve engineer-weeks or more, with a stated floor
These are effort estimates. Calendar duration depends on staffing and scheduling.
Illustrative example
One finding, traced
Requirement
Customer-facing record access must enforce the caller's authorization.
Population
All 41 customer-facing endpoints in the agreed examination. Six internal administrative routes are recorded separately as outside this example's scope.
Finding
Three endpoints return records by identifier without checking the caller's authorization.
Location
The three affected code locations, each identified by file and line.
Confirmation
Reproduced by an independent method, with the confirming evidence, named reviewer, and review date retained.
Result
Confirmed exception · High relevance · Fix band M
Meaning
Establishes unauthorized-access exposure. It does not establish that exploitation has occurred.
05
Coverage is part of the result.
Every limit identifies its source. If requested inputs were withheld, the record includes the request, date, and responsible party. If the method has an inherent limit, the instrument owns that limit in the report.
Measured
The defined check covered its full population.
Partially measured
A named limit affects the conclusion.
Not measured
The class carries no reading.
Coverage is printed near the front of the deliverable, alongside the conclusions it affects.
06
The repeatability record
The same inputs and measurement configuration produce byte-identical normalized measurement files, reconciled finding population, and AI-generated analysis. The final report's presentation is separate from this measurement record.
public codebases returned identical repeat findings.
codebases returned identical repeat findings.
public codebases. Last measured 23 July 2026; supporting test records retained by Big Lever AI.
07
What you receive
Every deliverable includes a guide to reading it, the commissioned question and scope, the product's conclusions, the coverage record, a register of findings, and the evidence supporting each finding. Stable finding IDs connect the executive account to the technical detail.
Sample access
Examine the deliverable.
Sample material is available through an invitation-only proof room.
For professional firms
Configured to your firm's engagement.
The same instrument can be configured across the question, examination scope, analytical focus, criteria, materiality, and deliverable. Applications include technical diligence, AI defensibility, remediation planning, and compliance inspection.