43 questions, answered plainly.

DataTruth is the independent second opinion on AI investments. Before a company signs an AI proposal or commits an AI budget, we compare the systems it runs on, record by record, and say in writing what the data can actually support: sign, fix first, or walk away. We sell no AI, no software and no fixes, we take no referral fees or commissions from anyone, and our fee is fixed before we start.

Our entry service. You send exports from two or more systems behind a decision (and the AI proposal or plan, if there is one). We match the records between them and send back a signed memo: your Truth Score (a score out of 100 for how far your data can be trusted), a Leverability read on the AI in question (whether you can use it now, after fixes, or not at all), the red flags between your systems, a scope line, a clear verdict and a short fix list. Then we walk you through it on a call.

Standard exports (spreadsheets downloaded from each system) from any two or more systems the decision depends on: CRM, billing, ERP and finance, HR and payroll, projects, support. Spreadsheets count. We send the exact field list first, so one person on your team can run the exports. If there is a proposal, plan or business case, send that too.

A Truth Score Read is delivered within 5 working days of complete exports. An AI Investment Review takes about 2 weeks. AI Value Tracking runs every quarter. If an export is missing fields we need, we say so straight away; the clock starts when complete exports arrive.

A fixed fee, agreed before we start, that never moves with the verdict. It is a small fraction of the proposal it tests; if it wouldn’t be, we’ll tell you on the call. You get the number on the first call, once we know which systems and decisions are in scope.

We are new, and we won’t pretend otherwise. That is why the method is published, including the cap that stops strong pillars hiding a weak one. Every finding points to records your own team can open and check, and the scope line says what we didn’t check. You can stop at the memo. Our first clients get a founding rate in exchange for a private reference call once they’re happy with the work, and only with their consent: we never name a client, fund or target publicly without written consent.

Yes. Our first clients get a founding rate, in exchange for a private reference call once they’re happy with the work. The call happens only with your consent, and we never name a client, fund or target publicly without written consent.

Yes. Send it with your exports. We take each claim it makes, work out the data that claim depends on, and check whether that data is there and can be trusted. Not whether the AI is clever, but whether your data can feed it. The verdict is plain: sign, fix first, or walk away.

Because by phase one you have signed. Their data phase is scoped, priced and staffed by the firm that will run the phases after it, so it is designed to lead to them. Ours comes before the signature, from a firm paid the same whatever the answer, and it tests whether the proposal’s own assumptions hold in your records. Use the memo to re-scope or negotiate the proposal.

Then the memo says sign, in writing, and you go ahead with evidence instead of a vendor’s word. If you don’t need anything more from us, we’ll tell you that too.

The facts in it. Every number points to records you can open, and the scope line says what we didn’t check. The decision stays yours: the memo says what your data can and can’t support, and what closing each gap takes. If your team disputes a finding, we re-check it against the records with them.

No. It stands on its own. You can stop at the memo, hand the fix list to your own team, or ask for an AI Investment Review when the question becomes every AI bet in the business. You decide, and nothing is bundled.

A Truth Score Read answers one decision in 5 working days: is the data behind this proposal or plan fit for it? An AI Investment Review takes about 2 weeks and covers every AI bet you put in front of us: it ranks them, tests the plan or thesis play by play, gives the full six-pillar Truth Score, writes a remediation roadmap and ends with a board readout.

A quarterly re-read, company by company: is the data under each AI investment still holding up? The Truth Score and Leverability read again, progress on the roadmap against the plan, and early warning when something slips. It measures the data, not the return. It is sold to each company’s own leadership, not run as surveillance for anyone else.

No. One person on your team runs standard exports from the systems behind the decision and sends them under NDA. We send the exact field list first. You never log in to anything and nothing is installed.

It arrives under NDA and our data processing agreement. The full list of sub-processors comes with our data processing agreement, before any data moves. Any transfer outside the EU is covered by Standard Contractual Clauses. Raw exports are deleted after the engagement.

Quality metrics and the memo: figures such as how many customers matched between two systems, fill rates for key fields, and the Truth Score. The memo cites a handful of sample records as evidence; everything else is deleted after the engagement.

An NDA and a data processing agreement are signed before any data moves. If your legal team prefers its own templates, send them over and we will work from those.

The Truth Score is rule-based: the same data, scored on the same date, gives the same score, and no AI model decides it. We do use a language model (Anthropic’s Claude, through its commercial API) to read the plan or proposal you send and to help draft the memo’s wording from our findings. A person checks every line before it reaches you. If you’d rather we didn’t use it on your engagement, say so and we do that part by hand.

The full list of sub-processors comes with our data processing agreement, before any data moves. Your team can review it before anything is sent. The language model we use is Anthropic’s Claude, through its commercial API, and you can ask us not to use it on your engagement.

Yes, plainly, including what we don’t have. We hold no formal security certifications and we don’t display badges. We will tell you exactly how exports are received, where they are processed, who can see them and when they are deleted.

The vendor is paid when you sign. Our fee is the same whether the answer is sign, fix first or walk away.

No. We never fix what we find and never run the remediation. But you don’t get a list of problems and a shrug: every Truth Score Read ends with a prioritised fix list, and every AI Investment Review with a full remediation roadmap, with owners, effort and a test for done, written to hand to your own team or any outside firm.

No referral fees in either direction. We take no referral fees, commissions or margin from anyone: not from AI vendors, software companies, consultancies or the firms that fix data. And we pay none to anyone who introduces a client. The only money we receive is the fixed fee you agreed.

Your own team, or any outside firm you choose. The roadmap doubles as their brief, so you can compare quotes like for like. Because we earn nothing from whoever you hire, nothing on the list is there to sell you something.

No. The fee is fixed before we start and never moves with the verdict. We are paid for the evidence, never for the outcome.

No. DataTruth sells no AI projects, no software and no implementation. Clients never log in to anything of ours: the service is the memo, the review and the people who stand behind them.

Our score out of 100 for how far your data can be trusted, across six weighted pillars: accuracy, completeness, governance, consistency, connectivity and lineage. It is rule-based, not AI-generated: the same data, scored on the same date, gives the same score, and every pillar shows what was measured and what wasn’t.

Accuracy 22%, Completeness 18%, Governance 18%, Consistency 16%, Connectivity 14%, Lineage 12%. Accuracy carries most weight because wrong data produces wrong answers fastest. The methodology page lists what we measure for each one.

Band A, 80 and above: AI ready. Band B, 60 and above: minor issues. Band C, 40 and above: significant work needed. Band D, below 40: foundation needed. The band is a summary; the memo tells you which specific gaps put you there.

Because of the cap. Accuracy, Completeness and Connectivity are the critical pillars. If the weakest of them is below 80, the overall score is capped at 0.55 times that pillar plus 35, rounded. In our sample the weighted average is 75 but Connectivity is 44, so the cap is 59 and the Truth Score is 59, Band C. Strong pillars can’t hide a weak foundation. The methodology page sets out the rule in full.

Not assessed means the exports gave us no signal for a pillar. Rather than guess, we leave it out, share its weight across the pillars we could measure, and say so in the memo. Limited signal means only part of the evidence is there: the pillar is scored on what exists, and the missing part counts as a gap, not a guess. Lineage is the usual case, because plain exports rarely carry full change history.

Which AI ideas you can use now, after fixes, or not at all. Each AI play or use case is marked Deploy now, Needs work or Blocked, with the reason in your own records. It speaks to whether the data is ready for a use case, never to whether the use case will succeed. (Nothing to do with debt.)

Yes. Send the business plan, growth strategy, value creation plan or thesis. We read it, pull out the AI plays and the growth targets that lean on them, map each play to the data it relies on, and mark each one Deploy now, Needs work or Blocked, with what it would take to close the gap.

The same customer is rarely spelt the same way twice. We look for a shared ID first, then a shared web or email domain, then the name once legal suffixes, punctuation and spacing are stripped. Close calls go to a person, not a rule, and every red flag is checked by hand against sample records before it reaches the memo.

No. The Truth Score measures your data against fixed rules, not against a peer group, and we publish no benchmarks. What matters is whether your data can carry the AI in front of you.

Our engine matches the customers, people, deals and invoices across the exports you send. Every red flag is checked by hand against sample records before sign-off, and the memo goes out signed off by DataTruth.

We take a limited number of reads at a time, so every red flag is checked by hand. For a portfolio we agree a sequence, one or two companies in parallel, each memo within 5 working days of complete exports.

For a Truth Score Read: a 30-minute call, one person running standard exports, and a walk-through call when the memo is ready. An AI Investment Review adds a kickoff, a few short conversations with the people who own each AI bet, and the board readout.

Any system that exports to CSV or Excel, and the spreadsheets between them: CRM, billing, ERP, HR and payroll, projects, support, warehouse and transport systems, production systems and asset registers. If two systems record the same customer, person, order or invoice, we can compare them. We read what an export can show: live sensor feeds and machine streams are out of scope unless their history can be exported. If a system can’t export the fields we need, we’ll say so on the call, before you send anything.

No. DataTruth is a service, not software. You send exports; we send back a signed memo, a review or a quarterly read, and walk you through it.

Yes. Start with one company, then use the same method across the portfolio: same pillars, same rules, same caps, so a 64 is built the same way at each company. Where a pillar is not assessed, the memo says so. Each company’s leadership is part of the work, and AI Value Tracking is sold to each company’s own leadership.

Book the 30-minute call. We talk through the decision, tell you which systems matter, and agree a fixed fee. The call commits you to nothing.