Embassy · Due diligence advisory
Independent leadership and governance due diligence for family offices, private equity and boards. Before capital is committed, Embassy tests who actually decides, whose incentives diverge, and whether the relationships the plan depends on will transfer.
Confidential · Led by John Wolf · Written brief in seven to ten business days
What diligence usually misses
Financial, legal, tax and commercial diligence examine the asset and the transaction: whether the numbers, contracts and systems hold. Assessment firms score each executive one at a time.
What sits between those people is examined far less often: who decides, who defers, and whose customers follow whom. It is where plans slip after closing.
Embassy’s due diligence examines that layer. It complements the other disciplines and replaces none of them.
The decisions it is built for
01 · What Embassy examines
Each is tested against the record. Every claim in the brief is marked observed, inferred or unresolved, with its source.
Authority
The documents name a chief executive. The largest customers still call the founder. An undefined approval right in the shareholder agreement decides which of those is true.
Incentives
The founder’s rollover, the new chief executive’s vesting, the head of sales with no retention arrangement, and the buyer’s own reluctance to arbitrate between them.
Relationships
Customers, lenders and regulators deal with people. Renewal dates and change-of-control clauses show when you will find out who they were dealing with.
The counter-case
Written down before commitment, with the conditions under which the thesis holds and the questions that must be answered first.
The cost
Investors report that the people side is where plans slip, and that they act on it late.
02 · How it differs
Each of these providers does valuable work. Embassy covers the layer between them, and works alongside all four.
| Executive search firms | Assessment psychologists | Investigative firms | Human-capital consultants | Embassy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Examines | Executives against the market | Each executive’s capability and personality | Integrity, litigation, reputation | Pay, benefits, retention, culture | Authority, incentives and relationships between the principals |
| Unit of analysis | The individual | The individual, often graded | The individual or entity | The workforce | The decision and the people carrying it |
| Output | References, benchmarks, replacement options | Individual reports and a talent plan | Findings on records and conduct | Liabilities and retention plans | Claims and evidence, counter-case, conditions for commitment |
| Strongest at | Market knowledge and candidate benches | Depth on one person | Background and records | Compensation and HR liabilities | Whether the plan’s human conditions hold |
01 · The relationships
Assessment firms score executives one at a time. Embassy maps what sits between them: stated and actual decision rights, the founder’s continuing reach, and which customer relationships depend on whom.
02 · The evidence standard
The investigative standard, applied to people and governance. Each finding carries its source and a confidence level, and the brief sets out the strongest case against the thesis.
03 · Senior-led
John Wolf leads every engagement, from the first conversation to the debrief. The interviews, the reading of the record and the brief are his.
03 · The deliverable
Pages from an illustrative composite: a family office buying control of a founder-led logistics company, where the founder becomes executive chair and the chief operating officer becomes chief executive.
The thesis holds on operations and is unproven on customers.
Three of the five largest accounts, 34% of revenue, were won and are still managed by the founder, who becomes executive chair at closing. The draft shareholder agreement gives the chair approval over “material commercial terms”, which it does not define.
What would change this view: a signed chair remit that excludes the three accounts, and a customer-by-customer transition plan agreed by founder and chief executive.
One page for the committee
The top findings, each tied to a claim and a confidence level, and the one line that says what would change the view.
Request the full sample brief| ID | Claim | What the record shows | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | The COO built the operating discipline. | Margins and on-time delivery improved across the COO’s tenure; operating reviews are COO-authored. | Observed |
| C2 | Customer relationships sit with the company. | Three of the top five accounts were won by the founder, who remains named contact. | Contradicted in part |
| C3 | The founder is ready to step back. | Written endorsement of the succession; also proposed chairing a new “commercial committee”. | Inferred |
| C5 | The chief executive will hold commercial authority. | Shareholder agreement §7.2: chair approval over “material commercial terms”, undefined. | Unresolved |
Evidence before opinion
Each claim in the investment thesis is set against what the record shows, with its status and sources. Single-source claims are marked as such.
| Decision | Stated owner | Observed owner | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pricing on the three largest accounts | Chief executive | Founder approves | Yes |
| New regional contracts | Chief executive; board above threshold | Founder introduces and negotiates | Yes |
| Operating budget | Chief executive | COO, the incoming chief executive | No |
| Chair and chief executive disagree | Board | No independent director; buyer prefers not to arbitrate | Yes |
Stated and observed
Who the documents say decides, set against who decides on the record and in the conversations. The gaps are where a plan stalls after closing.
| Before signing | Owner | Evidence of completion |
|---|---|---|
| “Material commercial terms” defined | Both parties’ counsel | Revised §7.2 |
| Transition plan for the three accounts | Founder and chief executive | Signed plan, dates per account |
| Consent route for the largest account | Buyer’s counsel | Customer correspondence |
Each path is tied to conditions and claim IDs. The choice belongs to the investment committee.
Conditions, not a verdict
What must be true before signing and in the first 100 days, with an owner and evidence of completion for each. The brief never makes the investment decision.
04 · The engagement
Scoped after a short fit conversation, between letter of intent and signing. John Wolf leads every engagement.
The materials already in the data room
One interview with the deal lead
Consent for up to three stakeholder conversations
A one-page executive summary
Claims and evidence, with confidence levels
Red flags by severity
Decision rights, stated and observed
Incentives by party, the buyer’s included
The counter-case
Conditions before signing and for the first 100 days
A sixty-minute debrief
The engagement ends with the brief and the debrief. Monitoring, implementation or negotiation support would each be a separate scope.
05 · Who leads it
John Wolf leads every engagement personally. Twenty years operating where outcomes depended on human judgment, across private capital, family offices, founder transitions, transaction readiness, AI infrastructure and relationship-sensitive negotiations.
Why John Wolf, why Embassy →06 · Scope and questions
Private-market decisions whose success depends on particular people holding particular roles: founder transitions, investments that rely on the team in place, partnerships with unclear authority, roll-ups that need their operators, and recapitalizations that change governance.
Between letter of intent and signing, while the findings can still shape terms, structure or timing.
The materials you already hold, one interview with the deal lead and, where scoped, consent for up to three stakeholder conversations. Nothing is requested before terms are in place.
No. It examines a different layer. Where individual assessment or background screening is needed, the brief is written to be read alongside it.
Only with each person’s consent and within the agreed scope. Each person knows why they are being asked and how their words will be used.
Every engagement begins with a conflict check and written confidentiality terms. Materials are shared only after those terms are agreed.
Scoped after a short fit conversation and agreed in writing before work begins.
The engagement ends. Any further work, such as monitoring or implementation, is scoped separately if you want it.
For a live decision
An active transaction, appointment, partnership or transition. John replies personally within one business day.
To see the deliverable first
The full illustrative sample brief, sent to your work email. A composite, not a client case.
