Skip to content
Chimera readability score 0.6059 out of 100, reading level.

When Raunak Bhinge first approached institutional investors seeking funding for Infinite Uptime, the pitch was straightforward: much of India’s factory equipment was still analogue, and digitising it could help manufacturers improve output. Over time, the venture pivoted from being seen as a software startup to proving it was an artificial intelligence (AI)-backed business built on proprietary industrial data and models refined over years of deployments.
“Investor due diligence has become deeper over the years as we raised funding,” said Bhinge, whose venture has raised over $60 million since inception. “There is still a bit of analysis paralysis even now.”
That is widening the circle of people pulled in to conduct diligence, from outside specialists to the Big Four advisory firms such as PwC and Deloitte. While they were always part of deal scrutiny, it was mostly for financial diligence, tech and cybersecurity reviews. AI has changed that playbook. Investors also want to know how the data is sourced, how models were trained, how reliable the outputs are, and whether customers are seeing real value.
Increased diligence coincides with growing investor interest in AI startups, as the technology threatens to disrupt traditional models and the software-as-a-service model. Indian AI ventures raised $832 million in 2025, with another $633 million flowing in during the first quarter of 2026 alone, according to Tracxn data.
Blackstone in February led a more than $1 billion investment in Neysa, while Emergent raised $70 million a month earlier. Sarvam AI is also reportedly in talks for a $200-250 million round from investors including Nvidia Corp, Bessemer Venture Partners and HCL Technologies Ltd.
Stricter screening
Elevation Capital, which has invested in nearly 30 AI companies over the past four years, now “routinely” brings in third parties and, wherever needed, works with Big Four firms on deal-specific reviews.
“AI has shifted venture diligence away from just asking typical SaaS-era focus go-to-market efficiency questions to more towards a deeper focus on product and engineering capability,” said Krishna Mehra, an AI partner at Elevation Capital.
For Bharat Innovation Fund (BIF), which has backed deep-tech and AI startups since 2018, the main challenge is not just that AI startups require a new technical lens, but their numbers have surged.
BIF has screened more than 6,000 AI startups, narrowed that to over 500, and held deeper discussions with roughly 300-400 of them, said Somshubhro Choudhury, co-founder and partner at the fund. He said diligence has become harder because investors are struggling to tell genuinely differentiated products from thin wrappers built on existing AI models.
Choudhury said founders are now asked to explain the full stack, how workflows are split into tasks, which models are being called and how the system has been trained. “We ask them to take us through the entire (code) stack.”
The fund brings in chief technology officers (CTOs) from portfolio companies and other experts from its network to pressure-test those claims before investing.
Enter, Big Four
For advisory firms, the diligence lens is broader still. AI diligence now stretches beyond product claims to include the data layer, contracts, business viability and whether the company has the internal talent to deploy AI at scale, said Siddharth Vishwanath, advisory markets leader at PwC India.
In practice, that means checking who owns the data, whether it was acquired legitimately, whether consent and privacy safeguards are in place, how reliable and fair the outputs are, and who is liable if the AI fails.
“This kind of work is more common in private equity than in early-stage venture capital, because PE firms usually enter once a company has customers, revenue and enough operating history to test,” according to Vishwanath.
Strong AI products coexisting with weak governance show up “very often”, especially when a PE investor is evaluating a company for the first time after earlier rounds of capital, said Vishwanath. He said roughly 70-80% of PwC’s reports in such AI-linked PE deals carry recommendations across governance, privacy, cybersecurity, compliance and team capability.
Rohit Madan, who leads Deloitte’s forensic due diligence practice, has scrutinized more than 30 startups over the past 18-24 months, giving the firm a bird's-eye view of how AI startup claims hold up under scrutiny.
After initial founder checks, he said, the review moves to business-model traction, clientele review and whether customers are genuinely using the product as claimed. For Madan, one of the biggest diligence risks lies in the data layer: investors need to know whether the data was legitimately sourced, licensed, or lawfully acquired, rather than scraped or pulled from protected databases in ways that could later trigger disputes or litigation.
Cost concerns
In one recent Deloitte diligence, Madan said, a startup that pitched itself as an agentic AI company still had 850 operations employees doing tagging work behind the scenes. “You’re not an agentic company with such large employees working full-time for running the model,” he said, describing the gap between the AI narrative and the actual operating model.
Jayant Saran, partner at Deloitte who leads forensic technology, has seen financial services emerge as a relatively easier AI category because the sector combines deep domain expertise with long experience in handling large data sets.
Healthcare and similar sectors, by contrast, are harder to underwrite because models often need to be adapted across countries, populations and systems, raising questions around data quality, scalability and real-world applicability. That makes the diligence burden heavier even when the product thesis appears strong.
Another growing concern is deployment economics. Abhishek Srivastava, general partner at Kae Capital, put it bluntly: “An AI product is expensive to run.” Investors increasingly have to ask whether those economics still make sense once a product moves beyond the demo stage and whether founders are actually building lower-cost layers of their own over time, he said.
For Infinite Uptime, this increased diligence shaped its journey from an early pitch around digitising factory equipment to creating a real AI moat. And according to Raunak Bhinge, “It’s a lot of learning from both sides–VCs as well as founders.”

Facts Only

Raunak Bhinge, founder of Infinite Uptime, raised over $60 million for his AI-backed industrial digitization startup.
Indian AI startups raised $832 million in 2025 and $633 million in Q1 2026, per Tracxn data.
Blackstone led a $1 billion investment in Neysa in February 2026.
Emergent raised $70 million in January 2026.
Sarvam AI is in talks for a $200-250 million funding round from investors including Nvidia, Bessemer Venture Partners, and HCL Technologies.
Elevation Capital has invested in nearly 30 AI companies over four years and now routinely involves third-party experts in due diligence.
Bharat Innovation Fund (BIF) has screened over 6,000 AI startups, narrowing to 500 for deeper review.
PwC and Deloitte are conducting AI-specific diligence, including data ownership, model reliability, and governance checks.
Deloitte found a startup claiming to be an "agentic AI" company still employed 850 people for manual tagging work.
Financial services AI startups face easier diligence due to established data-handling practices, while healthcare AI faces stricter scrutiny.
Kae Capital highlights concerns about the high operational costs of AI products post-demo stage.

Executive Summary

Indian AI startups are facing intensified investor scrutiny as the technology disrupts traditional business models. Investors now demand deeper due diligence, extending beyond financial and technical reviews to include data sourcing, model training, and real-world applicability. This shift reflects both the growing interest in AI ventures—with Indian startups raising $832 million in 2025 and $633 million in Q1 2026—and the challenges of distinguishing genuinely innovative products from superficial AI wrappers. Advisory firms like PwC and Deloitte are increasingly involved, assessing governance, data legitimacy, and scalability. Founders must now demonstrate not just technical capability but also sustainable economics, as AI products often require significant operational costs. The trend highlights a maturing market where investor caution balances enthusiasm for AI's potential.

Full Take

The strongest version of this narrative is that AI's disruptive potential is driving a necessary evolution in investor diligence. The shift from superficial SaaS-era metrics to rigorous technical and ethical scrutiny reflects a maturing market where stakeholders recognize both the promise and risks of AI. Investors are rightly demanding transparency on data provenance, model reliability, and real-world impact—critical factors for long-term viability. This trend aligns with broader calls for responsible AI deployment, where governance and scalability are as important as innovation.
However, the pattern of "analysis paralysis" among investors (ARC-0024 Ambiguity) risks stifling legitimate innovation if taken to extremes. The article highlights a tension between necessary caution and the potential for over-scrutiny to create barriers for startups with genuine but unproven models. The focus on "differentiation" also raises questions about whether investors are prioritizing novelty over practical utility—a classic case of ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey, where the "motte" (rigorous diligence) masks the "bailey" (unrealistic expectations of uniqueness).
Root cause: The paradigm here is the collision between AI's hype cycle and the venture capital model's need for predictable returns. Investors, burned by past overpromises, are now overcorrecting, demanding proof of value before committing. Yet this risks favoring incumbents with established data moats over scrappy innovators. The deeper implication is that AI's democratization may be constrained by capital allocation dynamics, where only well-funded players can meet the new diligence standards.
Bridge questions: How might this heightened scrutiny disproportionately affect early-stage founders without access to Big Four advisory networks? Could the focus on "differentiation" inadvertently discourage incremental but valuable AI applications? What would it look like if investors balanced rigor with flexibility, allowing for iterative improvement rather than demanding perfection upfront?
Counterstrike scan: A bad actor pushing this narrative might exaggerate the risks of AI startups to create FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), discouraging investment in competitors or steering capital toward favored players. However, the article presents a balanced view of legitimate concerns rather than a coordinated attack. The focus on governance and scalability aligns with healthy market maturation, not manipulation.

Sentinel — Human

Confidence

The article shows signs consistent with human authorship. The text demonstrates irregular sentence length variance, a personal voice, and accurate historical references, indicating it is likely written by a human journalist.

Signals Detected
low severity: Sentence length variance exhibits human-like irregularity
high severity: Text displays idiosyncratic emphasis and a personal voice
low severity: Historical references appear accurate, no signs of confabulation
Human Indicators
Quotes sound natural and not overly crafted
Text flows in a manner that suggests human writer's idiosyncrasies
AI funding boom pulls Big Four deeper into startup diligence — Arc Codex