Know what a technical review in a funding round usually covers.
Investors in later rounds often look beyond the product demo. A technical review, run by the fund’s staff or an outside adviser, typically asks how the system is built, how it is hosted, who can access it, how it would handle more customers, and how much depends on one or two people. The depth varies by round size and by how central the software is to the business.
The review also checks that the story in the deck matches the systems. If the company describes an automated platform, reviewers may ask how much work still happens by hand. If the deck cites retention or usage figures, they may ask where those numbers come from and whether they can be reproduced from the underlying data rather than a spreadsheet.
None of this requires a perfect codebase. Early products carry shortcuts, and experienced reviewers expect that. What worries them is surprise: undocumented systems, unclear access, licensing problems, or risks the founders did not know about. Preparation is mostly about making the real state of the software visible and showing that the team understands it.
Write down how the system works before anyone asks.
Start with a short architecture document. It should show the main components, where they run, which third-party services they rely on, how data moves between them, and where customer data is stored. A diagram and a few pages of plain explanation are usually enough, and they help new engineers as much as they help investors.
List every third-party service and open-source dependency that matters, with what it does and how it is licensed. Reviewers often look for copyleft licenses in a product that is distributed to customers, for services on personal accounts, and for critical vendors with no contract. Finding these first gives the team time to fix them calmly.
If the product still runs partly on a no-code tool such as Bubble or Airtable, say so and explain the plan. Many funded companies start that way. A written assessment of what the tool handles well, where it limits the product, and how the core flows will move to production software reads far better than a reviewer discovering it unprompted.
Tidy access, secrets, and security basics before the review starts.
Access is one of the first things a reviewer checks. Every production system, cloud account, code repository, and domain should be held by company accounts, with individual logins, multi-factor authentication, and access removed for anyone who has left. Former contractors with live credentials and shared admin passwords are common findings and simple to fix before diligence begins.
Secrets such as API keys and database passwords belong in a managed secrets store, not in code or chat messages. Backups should exist and, more importantly, should have been restored successfully at least once. Monitoring should show errors and outages, so the team can describe how incidents are noticed and handled instead of relying on customers to report them.
Enterprise customers may already have asked about single sign-on, audit logging, or penetration testing. Where those gaps exist, decide whether to close them now or describe a plan. Reviewers respond better to an accurate, prioritized list than to vague reassurance, and claiming controls the product does not have is a serious risk in any funding process.
Reduce dependence on one person and make the code readable to outsiders.
In many startups, one founder or early engineer understands most of the system. Investors see that as a risk to the plan they are funding. Recording design decisions, adding a local setup guide, and writing tests around the core flows all spread that knowledge, and they make it easier for the next hires to contribute with confidence.
Code quality matters less than code clarity. Reviewers do not expect every module to be elegant, but they do look for consistent structure, meaningful names, a working deployment process, and tests that run. A codebase another senior engineer can read, run, and change safely signals that the company can grow its team without rebuilding the product.
If the team is too small to do this alongside the roadmap, a senior outside team can take it on in a bounded phase. The work is concrete: documentation, tests on critical paths, cleanup of risky areas, and access fixes. It leaves the company in a better position for diligence and for the engineers it hires after the round.
Tie reported metrics to the underlying data and present known risks honestly.
Board and investor metrics such as revenue, retention, activation, and usage should be defined once and calculated from the product database, billing system, and CRM. When the same definitions feed every board pack, reviewers can trace a figure back to its source, and the founders avoid awkward differences between the deck, the data room, and the systems themselves.
Finish with a short written summary of known technical risks and the plan for each. It might cover a component due for replacement, a vendor dependency, a scaling limit, or a security gap being closed. Presenting this proactively shows judgment, gives investors context for what they find, and keeps the conversation focused on the plan rather than the surprise.
Baybloom helps venture-backed companies prepare in this way, from turning a prototype into production software to documenting architecture and building board reporting from connected data. The venture-backed companies page describes the typical first release and the questions founders ask, and the technology assessment guide explains how outside reviewers approach a company’s systems in more depth.
Put it into practice
Talk through the project you are considering.
Bring the workflow, the systems around it, and the questions you need to resolve. We can help define a useful next step.
Discuss your project