Does your code do what it was designed to do?

I'm building IntentGuard — a platform that answers one question that currently has no good automated answer: "Does the codebase you've been shipping actually do what you said it was going to do - and can you prove it to an investor, a regulator, or a board?" Depending on who you are, that question sounds different - but it matters to more people than most founders realise:

• If you're a founder heading toward a raise - it's "what will technical due diligence find in my codebase before the VC does?"

• If you're a developer shipping with AI tools (Cursor, Copilot, Claude) - it's "do I actually know what my AI wrote, and does it match what I intended to build?"

• If you're a CTO or engineering lead - it's "how do I give the board or an investor a credible, evidence-backed answer on technical health without commissioning a $50k consultant?"

• If you're an IT auditor or compliance lead - it's "how do I produce a verifiable AI governance evidence trail for EU AI Act, ISO 42001, or GDPR obligations - on demand, not quarterly?"

• If you work in VC, PE, or M&A - it's "how do I evaluate the technical quality of a portfolio company or acquisition target in hours, not weeks, without a specialist firm?"

• If you're at a professional services firm - it's "what tool can I point my clients toward when they need structured, audit-grade technical assurance before a transaction or compliance deadline?"

Pre-launch right now - final hardening in progress. Waitlist at intentguard.dev

I've been building this for the better part of a year. It's been educational, humbling, and occasionally maddening - and I'm genuinely looking forward to being part of this community and learning from everyone here.

One question: has anyone here been through a formal technical due diligence process - either as a founder being reviewed, or as someone doing the reviewing? What actually caught you off guard?