Independent Technical Verification for industrial investment decisions
Before capital commits, I test the one assumption the decision depends on.
I test the technical and industrial assumptions behind investments - from material and technology through production and scalability to sustainability, supply chain and China.
So it is clear what holds, where the risks lie, and what still needs to be tested.
Industry experience since 1996 · R&D · industrialisation · product and portfolio · P&L · Europe and Asia
The decisive uncertainty is rarely in the data room.
An investment case can look commercially sound - and still rest on a technical or industrial assumption that no one has tested closely enough.
Does the technology reach the claimed performance? Is the production process stable and scalable? Are capex, yield and capacity realistic? Does the material advantage hold at industrial scale? Is the sustainability claim technically robust? Are the assumptions on China, supply chain and cost realistic?
Not every one of these questions is material to the investment decision. My job is to identify the technical or industrial assumption that is material to the investment decision, test whether it holds, and make the consequence for the investment case clear.
Independent Technical Verification
Recognise technical uncertainty. Test critical assumptions. De-risk investment decisions.
Before the transaction
What has to be technically true for the investment case to hold?
Focused testing of critical assumptions on product, material, technology, production, scalability, capex, supply chain or China - before an open question becomes a deal risk.
During due diligence
Which technical assumption needs deeper testing?
Independent verification where existing information, management claims or other due-diligence workstreams leave a technically relevant question open.
After the transaction
Which technical assumption drives the value-creation thesis?
Testing of technology, production and material assumptions behind capex, scaling, product roadmaps, cost improvements or industrial expansion.
First the decisive assumption. Then the test.
Not every technical question deserves a due diligence.
In the free 20-minute Reframe Call we first establish whether a specific question deserves structured testing. In the Reframe Diagnostic that follows, we identify which technical or industrial assumption is material to the investment decision - and what evidence is needed to test it.
Only then do we decide whether, and how deep, the Independent Technical Verification has to go.
The next step follows the uncertainty - not the wish for a larger mandate.
On the industrial side of the table since 1996.
I am a chemist by training and have worked at the intersection of materials, technology and business since 1996 - in R&D, innovation, product management and operational business responsibility.
At Continental and FORVIA/Materi'Act I did not only assess technologies - I developed, industrialised and scaled them, and carried commercial responsibility for them, in Europe and Asia.
Senior-only: from the first hypothesis to the final finding, the technical work stays with me.
Experience the judgment rests on.
Industry experience since 1996
Technical development and industrialisation, product and portfolio responsibility, R&D, innovation, venture building and regional P&L.
Technology to industrialisation
Materials and technologies developed, assessed, industrialised and scaled - with responsibility for performance, cost and market readiness.
Europe and China
Operational responsibility in Europe and Asia, including four years in Shanghai and building the Asia business for FORVIA/Materi'Act.
Senior-only
From the first hypothesis through the technical testing to the decision-relevant finding, I work on the mandate personally.
Delivered at deal speed.
- A first read within days on a scoped question.
- Reframe Diagnostic in 90 minutes; the written Assumption Test Map the same week.
- Technical Verification Note in days, not months - IC-ready.
- Senior-only from first hypothesis to final finding. NDA standard.
Which assumption carries your decision?
The entry point is a 20-minute Reframe Call: free, on a specific technical or industrial question. We look at the decision on the table and clarify whether a technical or industrial assumption sits behind it that deserves focused testing.
If so, the Reframe Diagnostic follows: 90 minutes of structured work on the decision, the load-bearing assumption, the evidence required and the failure conditions. Result: a written Assumption Test Map with the recommended next test.
€2,900 plus VAT · a 90-minute working session plus the written Assumption Test Map
Independent Technical Verification
Testing what carries the investment case technically.
Independent Technical Verification focuses on the technical and industrial assumptions that are material to an investment decision. It can stand alone on a focused question or complement a broader technical due diligence where one assumption requires deeper testing.
Product and material. Technology and technical differentiation. Production and scalability. Capex and capacity. Quality and yield. Supply chain and cost. Sustainability claims. China and Asia.
Not every technical question needs the same depth. What matters is which assumption can actually change the investment case - and what evidence is required to test it.
When a technical assumption becomes investment-relevant.
Independent Technical Verification complements the commercial, financial and legal due diligence where a technical or industrial assumption materially affects the investment case.
Before the transaction
A technical assumption is part of the investment thesis but not yet tested closely enough. Focused verification creates clarity before further resources or capital are committed.
During due diligence
Management claims, the data room or other workstreams raise a technical question that needs deeper testing - without turning it into a full technical due diligence.
After the transaction
The value-creation thesis depends on scaling, capex, product roadmap, cost improvement, material substitution, production performance or expansion. The underlying technical assumptions are verified independently.
What I test
The specific testing follows the assumption that is material to the investment case. Typical fields are:
Product & Material
Does the product reach the claimed performance? Are material choice, specification and technical advantages robust? How easily can the product or material be substituted?
Technology & Differentiation
Is the claimed technical differentiation real, relevant and reproducible? How mature is the technology? What technical barriers protect the lead - and how quickly could a competitor catch up?
Production & Scalability
Is the process industrially robust? Can volume, yield and quality be reached as planned? What technical bottlenecks appear at scale-up?
Capex, Capacity & Cost
Are the industrial assumptions behind capacity, investment need and manufacturing cost plausible? Which technical dependencies could change the business case?
Supply Chain & China
How robust are raw-material, supplier and production assumptions? What dependencies exist? Do cost, competition and localisation assumptions hold under real conditions in China and Asia?
Sustainability, Circularity & Regulation
Do material, recycling and sustainability claims survive technical scrutiny? Are the assumed solutions industrially scalable? What consequences do regulatory requirements carry for material, technology, production and business case?
Not every mandate covers all fields. What gets tested is what matters to the decision.
What verification catches
A claim can look sound in the data room and still not hold at industrial scale. Three recurring patterns - anonymised, drawn from real material and sustainability claims:
Recycled content
"30% recycled content"
Looks sound: a certificate in the data room and a supplier attestation.
What verification separates: mass-balance attribution from physical recyclate in the polymer. A mass-balance claim can be correct accounting and still mean almost no recycled molecules in the actual part - which matters when an OEM requirement or a marketing promise is about physical content.
Decision impact: value-impacting to thesis-breaking, depending on whether the thesis rests on a physical-content requirement.
CO2 reduction
"-40% CO2 versus conventional"
Looks sound: a single LCA figure, cleanly placed in the IC deck.
What verification separates: the system boundary and baseline behind the number. A cut-off versus substitution choice, a favourable baseline, or secondary database data instead of primary data can move the figure by tens of percent.
Decision impact: value-impacting - the sustainability premium assumed in the business case may not survive independent scrutiny.
Closed-loop recyclability
"Fully recyclable, closed-loop PP"
Looks sound: a recycling process exists and a demonstrator runs.
What verification separates: theoretical recyclability from what repeated reprocessing does to the polymer - thermo-oxidative chain scission, MFI shift, loss of impact and stiffness, stabiliser consumption - and whether the real end-of-life path exists at 100 kt, not only in the demonstrator.
Decision impact: thesis-breaking if the value-creation case assumes closed-loop material that survives OEM qualification.
Patterns are anonymised and generalised - no client, target or deal is identifiable.
The path to verification
Reframe Call → Reframe Diagnostic → Independent Technical Verification → Technical Verification Note
Each step decides the next. The free Reframe Call establishes whether testing makes sense at all. The Reframe Diagnostic - €2,900 plus VAT, a working session plus written Assumption Test Map - isolates the load-bearing assumption and the evidence needed. Only then is the scope of an Independent Technical Verification set.
The full process - from evidence review to the IC-ready Technical Verification Note - is on the Approach page.
Clear scope, not a full audit.
Independent Technical Verification is not a complete review of every technical aspect of a company. The scope follows the investment question and the assumption that is material to it. Before the mandate begins, it is therefore clear:
What is tested?
The technical or industrial assumption relevant to the decision.
How is it tested?
The evidence required to judge that assumption reliably.
What is not tested?
Questions outside the agreed scope, or outside my competence, are stated explicitly as such.
What stays uncertain?
Where the available evidence does not allow a reliable judgment, the uncertainty stays visible.
A reliable finding does not mean having an answer to every question. It means drawing a clear line between what holds, what does not - and what is not yet proven.
I assess regulatory requirements for their technical and industrial consequences. Legal advice, and legal patent, IP or freedom-to-operate reviews, are not part of the mandate.
Is there a technical assumption that could affect your decision?
The Reframe Call is the first filter: 20 minutes on a specific technical or industrial question. You need neither a full data room nor prepared analysis - only a concrete question.
If a testable, decision-relevant assumption emerges, the next step is the Reframe Diagnostic.
20 minutes · free
Approach
First the right question. Then the right test.
Independent Technical Verification does not start with a standard checklist. It starts with the decision: what has to be technically or industrially true for the investment case to hold?
From there follows the assumption that must be tested. From the assumption follows the evidence required. And only then follows the scope of the work. That keeps the work focused on what can actually change the decision.
01 · Reframe Call
20 minutes · free · a concrete question required
It starts with two questions: What decision is on the table? Which technical or industrial assumption could materially change it?
The Reframe Call is not a general introductory chat and not a shortened consultation. It serves one purpose: to establish whether a technical or industrial uncertainty sits behind your question that deserves structured testing.
- No relevant need to test. The technical question is not material to the decision.
- The question is relevant but already sufficiently answered. Further testing would not improve the decision.
- A decision-relevant assumption is open. Then the Reframe Diagnostic follows.
02 · Reframe Diagnostic
€2,900 plus VAT · a 90-minute working session plus written Assumption Test Map
Now a technical question becomes a testable decision hypothesis.
- 1DecisionWhat decision is to be made?
- 2Load-bearing assumptionWhich technical or industrial assumption must hold for this decision to carry?
- 3Evidence requiredWhat evidence would confirm or refute the assumption?
- 4Failure conditionsWhat does it mean for the investment case if the assumption does not hold?
- 5Next testWhich test reduces the decision-relevant uncertainty most effectively?
Deliverable: Assumption Test Map
After the Diagnostic you receive the analysis in condensed written form: Decision → Assumption → Evidence → Failure Conditions → Next Test. Before a larger mandate, it is clear what must be tested, why it matters to the decision, and what evidence is required. Only then is the scope of an Independent Technical Verification set.
03 · Verify
Testing follows the assumption - not a standard checklist.
From the Assumption Test Map comes a clearly bounded verification scope. Only the evidence that can confirm, refute or reliably narrow the decision-relevant assumption is examined.
Depending on the question, I work with:
Technical evidence
Specifications, test data, quality data, process parameters, technical documentation, development status and performance data.
Industrial evidence
Production processes, capacity, yield, scrap, equipment, scale-up, capex assumptions and manufacturing cost.
Management evidence
Conversations with R&D, engineering, operations, quality, procurement and management - focused on the assumptions behind the presented numbers and claims.
External evidence
Technical benchmarks, competitor products, supply chains, market information, regulatory requirements and publicly available evidence.
On-site evidence
Where the question requires it, I examine processes, equipment and industrial reality on the plant floor.
The aim is not maximum information. The aim is sufficient evidence for a reliable judgment on the assumption that affects the investment case.
04 · Finding
Technical evidence only becomes valuable once it is clear what it means for the decision.
At the end of the Independent Technical Verification I condense the results into a clear finding.
- What holds - which technical or industrial assumptions are supported by the evidence.
- What does not - which claims or assumptions do not survive testing.
- What remains uncertain - where the evidence does not allow a reliable judgment, and how relevant that is.
- Decision impact - what the finding means for the investment case: thesis-breaking, value-impacting or manageable.
- Next action - which further test, safeguard or measure follows.
Deliverable: Technical Verification Note
The result is condensed by default into a short, IC-ready Technical Verification Note. It does not document everything examined. It concentrates on what is relevant to the investment decision. Depending on the mandate, I add technical annexes, a fuller report or a presentation for the deal team, investment committee or management.
The investment decision stays with the investor. My job is to make clear which technical assumptions hold - and which do not.
What I need for a reliable test
The access required follows the question. Not every mandate needs a plant visit or direct access to the target.
Decision context
I need to understand which decision is to be made and what role the technical question plays in the investment case.
Evidence access
Access to the evidence relevant to the assumption - technical documentation, test and quality data, production metrics, capex assumptions or data-room material.
Management access - if required
Where an assumption cannot be tested from the documents, direct access to R&D, engineering, operations, quality, procurement or management may be needed.
Site access - if required
Where industrial reality itself is part of the assumption, a site visit or plant assessment can become part of the verification.
Where the necessary evidence is not accessible, that limit is not replaced by assumption. It is stated in the finding as remaining uncertainty.
A concrete question is enough to start.
You do not need to know yet which test you need. You need a concrete technical or industrial question that could be relevant to an upcoming decision.
Not every call leads to a Diagnostic. Not every Diagnostic leads to a Verification.
The next step follows the uncertainty - not the wish for a larger mandate.
About
Technical judgment is not built in the data room.
It is built over years of developing technologies, choosing materials, solving production problems, defending investments and carrying responsibility for the outcome.
I am Dr. Erhard Barho, chemist and industry manager. Since 1996 I have worked at the intersection of materials, technology and business - from development and industrialisation through product management and innovation to regional P&L responsibility in Europe and Asia.
I have led R&D organisations, industrialised technologies, owned product portfolios, built new businesses and, as a general manager, taken responsibility for a regional business. Today I work independently. I bring that operational experience into the technical testing of investment decisions.
From technical depth to business responsibility.
My career began in chemistry and product development. With each step the view widened: from material and product through industrialisation and portfolio to organisation, investment and business.
Develop technology
As a chemist and development engineer I developed products and materials against technical requirements, cost and industrial constraints - through to customer approval.
Own products and portfolios
In product management I connected technical roadmaps with market, production and commercial goals and steered global development and launch decisions.
Lead R&D and innovation
As a global R&D leader I was responsible for up to 160 people and a €30M budget, and cut development time by around 50 percent through clear stage-gate governance.
Scale new businesses
As Head of New Ventures I grew a corporate venture from 4 to 45 people - from business model and product roadmap to industrial scaling.
Build the business in Asia
Most recently, as Asia General Manager, I built the China and Japan business of FORVIA Materi'Act - with regional P&L and responsibility for strategy, customers, R&D, programmes, operations and local value creation.
I do not look at a technology in isolation. I test whether technical performance can become industrial reality, and industrial reality a robust business case.
I have owned technical decisions from several angles.
A technical assumption looks different depending on where you sit.
- In R&D, the question is whether a technology works.
- In industrialisation, whether it is reproducible, robust and scalable.
- In product management, whether technical performance, cost and customer requirements fit together.
- In innovation and venture building, whether a technology can become a viable business.
- In business responsibility, whether market, organisation, supply chain, capex and result together make a robust business case.
I have worked in all of these functions - from development engineer to regional P&L. That is the perspective I bring to investment decisions: not only whether the technology works, but which technical or industrial assumption must hold for the investment case to carry - and whether it survives independent testing.
Industrial reality is local.
Technologies can be described globally. Their industrial viability is decided on the ground.
I have carried international responsibility for many years - for development, products and businesses in Europe, China, Japan, the USA and Mexico. For four years I was responsible for R&D in Asia, based in Shanghai. Later I built the China and Japan business for FORVIA Materi'Act - from strategy and organisation to customers, suppliers, local value creation and regional P&L.
That experience matters most when an investment case depends on assumptions about China or Asia: Are cost and capacity realistic? Is the technology locally competitive? How robust are supply chain and localisation?
I do not treat China as a separate country risk. I test the specific assumption China or Asia has to meet in the investment case.
Career
Independent Technical Verification for PE/M&A and industrial decision processes.
Regional P&L, building China and Japan, global product strategy, materials and circularity.
Venture building, innovation and global R&D responsibility with up to 160 people and a €30M budget.
International R&D, industrialisation, portfolio and product responsibility.
Technical development, OEM requirements, industrialisation, quality and cost.
Education
Dr. rer. nat. · organic chemistry and biochemistry · Leibniz University Hannover · Imperial College London
Business administration · marketing and human resources · Leibniz Akademie Hannover
Independent means the outcome is not fixed in advance.
I am not mandated to confirm an investment thesis. I am mandated to test the technical or industrial assumption behind it. The result can be that the evidence carries it. It can show that it does not hold. Or that the available evidence is not yet enough for a reliable judgment.
- Materiality first. I focus the testing on what can actually change the decision.
- Evidence before opinion. A technical judgment needs evidence - not just experience or expert opinion.
- Uncertainty stays visible. What cannot be proven is not replaced by certainty in the language.
- Decision impact matters. A finding is only decision-relevant once it is clear what it means for the investment case.
- Senior-only. From the first hypothesis to the final finding, the technical work stays with me.
My job is not to endorse or reject a deal. My job is to make visible what holds technically.
Do you have an assumption where experience alone is not enough?
In the 20-minute Reframe Call we look at a specific technical or industrial question behind your decision. If a decision-relevant assumption emerges, we determine the next sensible test.
Insights
Not every headline is a signal.
Here I analyse developments that can change the technical or industrial assumptions behind investments. Not as a newsfeed. As a test of the assumptions behind the news.
What I work on
Materials & Industrial Technology
Materials, polymers, surfaces, circularity and industrial technologies - with an eye on technical differentiation, scalability, cost and competitiveness.
China & Asia
Industrial policy, localisation, competition and technological development in China and Asia - and what actually follows from it for European companies and investors.
Investment Assumptions
Technical and industrial assumptions behind M&A, capex and growth decisions: What has to hold? What evidence is there? What changes if the assumption does not hold?
Selected Analysis
A selection of my analyses on technical and industrial change relevant to investors and industrial companies.
China
From political will to industrial reality
China's 15th Five-Year Plan sets the direction. What matters next is the layer below: sector roadmaps, standards, funding mechanisms, capital allocation.
Where does political priority actually become industrial demand, capacity and competition?
Autonomous Driving & Freight
When logistics becomes an industrial system
Autonomous driving, vehicles, batteries, energy, infrastructure and logistics are increasingly thought of in China as one connected system.
Which assumptions about transport cost, utilisation and value creation change when this system scales?
Materials M&A
Specialty or commodity?
Carve-outs and ownership changes first change the owner - not automatically the quality of an asset.
Defensible technical and economic differentiation, or commodity exposure with a specialty narrative?
Energy & Capacity
The scarcest asset is not always the technology
Capital, technology and demand are not enough when energy and infrastructure become the limiting factor.
Which assumption about available capacity must hold for the business case to scale at all?
The full analyses appear on LinkedIn and in ABSORPTION + DENSITY.
ABSORPTION + DENSITY
My ongoing analysis of where industrial value creation moves - and why.
Absorption describes the additional energy taken up by an economic activity. Density describes the economic value created from that energy input.
I use this frame to examine whether additional energy consumption creates proportionally more economic value - and to distinguish structural industrial change from short-term noise.
Contact
Which assumption would you like to test?
The entry point is a 20-minute Reframe Call on a specific technical or industrial question. You do not need a full data room or prepared analysis yet.
Three things help:
- What decision is on the table?
- Which technical or industrial question is open?
- Why could it be relevant to the decision?
In the call we clarify whether a decision-relevant assumption sits behind it that deserves structured testing.
20 minutes · free
Direct contact
Dr. Erhard Barho · Barho Advisory · Hannover, Germany
Email: booking@barho-advisory.com
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/erhardbarho
For live or potential transactions, we can first discuss the question at a level that requires no confidential target information. If the next step needs confidential information, it can proceed under NDA.