Most fintech projects do not fail on the code. They fail because a decision was taken in the wrong order — architecture before jurisdiction, a vendor before a written scope, a build before anyone established whether a licence was needed. Each of those is cheap to fix in the week it happens and expensive to fix a year later.
This check asks what has actually been settled, and reports the stage that follows from your answers, the things standing between you and the next one, and the three to five actions worth taking now. It also says what you should not be paying for yet.
It is for the period before there is anything to audit — when the expensive decisions are still ahead of you.
It is not for a product that already exists and is running. That is a different set of questions, and the Technology Control Check asks them. Technology Control Check
Nine questions drawn from the FinMV assessment — the same questions, a shorter list. Every point is traceable to an answer you gave, and a dimension nothing asked about is reported as unassessed rather than as zero.
Where this operates and what that implies. Jurisdiction determines the licence, the KYC obligations, the custody arrangement and a large share of the data model.
Equity, debt, real estate, P2P or a private portal, and whether it is open to the public or invitation only. These are different products, not variations of one.
Held, applied for, still being researched, or not needed. Building on an assumed answer is how projects lose a year.
Whether what you want built is written down. Without it nobody can price the work honestly or compare two vendors fairly.
Who inside the company can judge a technical proposal, and what happens when nobody can.
Whether the money to finish exists, and what you are actually trying to decide this month.
