AI due diligence questionnaire template for SaaS teams
When the buyer thread shifts from "answer this one AI question" to "show us how this workflow is governed," a generic response block stops working. Use this template when procurement, security, privacy, or counsel wants the named vendor chain, workflow scope, customer-data boundary, approval owner, proof links, and framework notes in one review-ready packet.
This page is for the SaaS team answering the buyer's AI due diligence request. It helps package the facts, owner path, and proof trail before the final approval language goes through procurement, privacy, security, or counsel review.
Use this when the buyer has moved beyond a single answer block
The reviewer wants the named vendor chain
List the visible AI vendor plus hosts, databases, analytics tools, support systems, and any other downstream providers tied to the workflow.
The reviewer wants governance, not marketing copy
State the workflow reviewed, data categories touched, training or retention stance, approval owner, and unresolved questions instead of repeating broad trust language.
The reviewer wants proof behind each claim
Attach public links, internal notes, screenshots, review dates, and framework references so the thread can be checked quickly without another round trip.
Start with the browser-side scorecard, then branch only if needed
The scorecard already captures the named vendor, workflow, customer scope, stance, notice impact, approval owner, proof, and open questions. Use it as the working draft for an AI due diligence questionnaire before you write a final answer or buy a broader packet.
Core template fields
| Field | What to capture | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Named AI vendor and workflow | The primary vendor plus the exact product or internal workflow under review. | Prevents vague answers that hide the real system being assessed. |
| Downstream provider chain | Hosting, storage, analytics, support, model, or observability providers touched by the workflow. | Buyers increasingly want the chain behind the top-level vendor. |
| Data categories and customer scope | What data is touched, whether customer content is involved, and which accounts, regions, or products are affected. | Reviewers care about scope more than slogans. |
| Training or retention stance | Your current operating position plus the link or internal note supporting it. | This is one of the fastest ways a thread turns into follow-up if the proof is missing. |
| Approval owner and next review gate | Who owns the answer, what still needs approval, and what event triggers the next recheck. | Makes the packet actionable instead of descriptive only. |
| Proof links and framework notes | Public pages, screenshots, tracker rows, and optional notes for frameworks such as NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, or customer-specific diligence requirements. | Lets security, procurement, or counsel verify the answer without rebuilding the file themselves. |
Copy-ready structure
1. Workflow reviewed: Name the AI-assisted workflow, where it appears, and whether it is planned, active, or replacing another process.
2. Vendor chain: Name the primary AI vendor and the downstream providers involved in hosting, storage, analytics, support, or logging.
3. Data and customer scope: State the categories of data touched and which customers, agreements, or regions are affected.
4. Governance stance: State the current training, retention, approval, and escalation position with the supporting proof source.
5. Open issues: State what is still under review, who owns it, and what recheck or approval event closes it.
Route the template into the right next asset
Use the due diligence scorecard
If the vendor chain, customer scope, stance, or proof is still fuzzy, keep working in the scorecard before you draft the final answer.
Use the evidence map
If the answer is close but the reviewer wants proof assets, owner, review date, or framework-reference notes behind one claim, package that separately.
Open evidence mapUse teardown or audit
If a live deal is blocked on the due diligence packet shape itself, use the teardown for a short read or the paid audit for a tighter async review.
What to do if the buyer really only needs one answer
Do not overbuild a broad packet if the live blocker is still one questionnaire row. Once the due diligence fields above are clean, move into the due diligence starter pack or answer builder so the current thread gets a usable response instead of another internal artifact.