One example of the kind of work The BioChain Advisory does: helping organisations work out whether their systems can actually prove what they claim, before a regulator, investor, customer or incident forces the question. Here is how that played out.
A growing biotechnology company was preparing for a major investment round. Its scientific story was compelling, but much of the evidence supporting that story had accumulated organically as the company grew. Experimental data sat across laboratory systems and shared drives. Analytical results had been produced by different software environments over time. Some important supporting files sat with external providers or former employees. Certain workflows were well documented; others depended heavily on institutional knowledge.
During normal operations, the organisation functioned effectively. Due diligence changed the question.
The investor asked the company to substantiate several key claims: the development history of a product, the origin of a dataset, the reliability of a particular result, and the way significant technical decisions had been reached.
We ran a Data Integrity Audit to examine whether those claims could actually be reconstructed from the underlying evidence. The review followed selected high-value claims backwards through the systems and records that supported them, examining whether the organisation could identify the source data, associated identifiers, relevant software or analytical versions, approvals, amendments and the people or external providers involved at each stage.
The audit also identified where important evidence depended on spreadsheets, email attachments, personal storage, undocumented transfers or systems that were never designed to function as long-term evidence repositories.
The objective was not to make the organisation appear more mature than it was. It was to establish an honest picture of what could currently be demonstrated, what was weak, and what needed strengthening before scrutiny began.
Could the company prove its story before an investor tried to disprove it?
That gave management a practical remediation plan: protect this dataset, formalise this workflow, retrieve these third-party records, document these historical transformations, and fix these identifier problems before they became questions in the diligence room. For an organisation approaching a major transaction, that proved far more valuable than discovering those gaps when the investor found them first.
Several months, if possible. The findings often point to work — retrieving records, formalising a workflow — that takes time, and you want it done before the data room opens, not during it.
No, and it is not meant to. It covers the specific question your other advisers are not equipped to answer: whether the scientific and technical evidence behind the company’s claims can actually be reconstructed. Our finance-side advisor, a FTSE and Fortune-level CFO, works directly alongside your investor-relations and legal teams, so the picture we build feeds straight into the wider due-diligence process rather than sitting apart from it.
Because the value is in knowing what a sceptical investor will actually test, and in finding the gaps before they do. Our team includes people who have led technical due diligence, regulatory readiness and audit-grade evidence work professionally — the kind of scrutiny that is hard to replicate by asking your own team to mark its own homework.
A prioritised remediation plan tied to your specific claims — which datasets to protect, which workflows to formalise, which third-party records to retrieve — so your team walks into the data room already knowing where the gaps are, instead of finding out from the investor.
The BioChain Advisory helps organisations understand how evidence actually moves through their existing systems, independent of whether they ever deploy The BioChain platform itself. Engagements typically take one of two forms: a Data Integrity Audit, tracing representative evidence chains from source to conclusion to establish what can genuinely be demonstrated, or a Regulatory & Cross-Border Readiness Review, examining whether an organisation's systems and records can support the claims a new jurisdiction or regulation requires.