Does the investment
case hold up?
Before approving funding, continuing delivery or scaling a program, have a senior operator examine the economics, evidence and alternatives.
One decision. Two weeks. Fixed fee.
A consequential decision deserves a tested case.
Whose job is it to ask whether the premise still holds?
As spending and expectations grow, the original case can become harder to challenge. A Second Opinion gives the sponsor an outside assessment before the next commitment.
For CFOs, CIOs, COOs, investment committees and PE operating partners who need a clear recommendation before committing more.
- Approve an investment.Before funding an AI use case, selecting a platform or approving a replatforming proposal, test the assumptions and alternatives.
- Release the next tranche.A program needs more funding or a vendor proposes another phase. Check whether costs, adoption and benefits still justify the commitment.
- Move from pilot to scale.The pilot works. Test whether its economics and operating model will hold across the business.
Four questions decide an AI investment. Two get an independent check.
Technical and control reviews assess whether a system works and meets its requirements. Second Opinion examines whether the expected benefits justify the investment and whether the organization can realize them.
| Challenge | The question | What it tests | Who usually provides it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mature independent checks | |||
| 01Technical | Can it work? | Architecture, models, data, security, integration, performance | Engineers, architects, technical red teams |
| 02Trust | Can we rely on it? | Risk, safety, privacy, compliance, bias, controls | AI governance, audit, independent AI assurance |
| The second-opinion gap | |||
| 03Value | Is it worth it? | Benefits, costs, adoption, productivity, revenue, opportunity cost, alternatives | The sponsor and the team that built the business case |
| 04Organizational | Can this organization turn it into value? | Ownership, workflow, decision rights, incentives, operating model, change capacity | Often nobody with distance from the program |
It asks how the investment could fail while the technology succeeds.
What the review examines
We use your teams’ technical and control findings as inputs. The Stratium Lens connects the investment’s economics with benefit ownership and the organization’s ability to deliver.
| Question | What we examine | What the decision needs |
|---|---|---|
| 01Value. Is it worth it? | Remaining cost, realizable benefits, adoption, time to value and credible alternatives. | A business case with traceable assumptions and a clear view of how key variables affect the result. |
| 02Ownership. Who will realize the value? | Business owners, workflow changes, incentives, decision rights and change capacity. | A named owner for each benefit and the authority to make the required changes. |
| 03Delivery fit. Can this organization deliver it? | Operating model, platform fit, dependencies and delivery capacity, assessed against your teams’ technical evidence. | A feasible delivery path with material assumptions and dependencies stated clearly. |
| 04Conditions. What must be true to proceed? | Existing technical and control assurance, and any gaps that affect this decision. | Clear approval conditions and any specialist validation still required. |
Penetration testing, model validation, legal opinions and implementation are separately scoped specialist work. The memo identifies any such work still needed to support the decision.
Start at the decision you face today.
Start with a Case Review for one decision, or agree the three-gate Protocol for one program. Reviews are scheduled around your funding and delivery decisions.
- What business outcome justifies this investment?
- Which alternative offers a credible route?
- What must change in the business for the benefits to land?
- What has changed since approval?
- Do adoption, cost and benefit data support continuation?
- What does the next funding tranche buy?
- Will the economics hold at wider adoption?
- Can operations, controls and support sustain the rollout?
- What conditions justify scaling, redesigning, pausing or stopping?
Would we fund this again today?
We assess whether the value still achievable justifies the remaining investment. Prior spending informs the review; the next commitment needs its own case.
Case Review.
We test whether the evidence supports one funding, platform or scale decision. The review examines expected benefits, remaining costs, delivery assumptions and credible alternatives. You receive a recommendation, with conditions for proceeding and any unresolved questions.
What happens
- Agree the decision to be reviewed, the commissioning sponsor, the evidence required and the limits of the review.
- Review the business case, approval record, cost and benefit assumptions, and the relevant architecture and delivery evidence.
- Interview the sponsor, finance, delivery and business owners in 5–7 focused sessions.
- Test the key assumptions and credible alternatives, and give management an opportunity to respond to the findings.
- Deliver a signed memo and executive readout to the agreed decision body.
What you get
- Challenge MemoA recommendation to proceed, proceed with conditions, redesign, pause or stop, with the reasons and limits stated clearly.
- Assumption RegisterThe material assumptions, their owners, supporting evidence and remaining uncertainties.
- Management Response LogEach material challenge, the response received and any unresolved item.
- Decision BriefOne page with the call, conditions, accountable owners and the next decision date.
The first conversation establishes fit, scope and timing.
Protocol.
What happens
- Agree three review points, the program boundary and the engagement period at the outset.
- A named lead reviewer maintains the evidence and decision history across all three gates.
- Establish the original benefit, cost and adoption assumptions, and keep a separate record of approved changes.
- Reassess the investment case at each gate using current evidence and management responses.
What you get
- Three Case Review packsMemo, assumption register, management response log and decision brief at each scheduled gate.
- Benefits BaselineThe original benefit commitments, supporting evidence and accountable owners, with a record of later revisions.
- Review TriggersAgreed events that warrant discussing an additional review, such as a major scope or architecture change.
- Closing ReportWhat changed across the three gates, what the evidence supports and what the organization should retain or address.
Disclosed interests.
The commissioning sponsor defines the decision and review scope. Management makes the decision and responds to material findings. Unresolved concerns remain in the final record.
Stratium also offers Turnaround. We disclose relevant commercial interests before the review and on page one of the memo. A Second Opinion engagement is the only paid work we do on that program. If we designed or delivered the work under review, we disclose that involvement. Independent assurance of our own work requires a separate reviewer.
- 01The lead reviewer signs the findings and identifies the evidence supporting the recommendation.
- 02You own the decision record and can use it with your team or any delivery firm.
- 03Where the review points to recovery work, you choose who does it.
A review your decision process can use.
We draw on the evidence held by your finance, technology, program and governance teams to give the decision owner a focused recommendation on the next investment commitment.
Independent review at key decision points has an established precedent in the U.K. government’s Gate Review process. Stratium’s commercial service is a separate offering.
Choosing between the offers
- Second OpinionYou need the case for a particular funding, platform or scale decision tested.
- TurnaroundYou need the causes of underperformance diagnosed and a recovery path established.
- When a review reveals deeper troubleWe identify what needs further investigation. You decide whether to commission recovery work and which firm to appoint.