Technical due diligence is not a code review. Nobody funds or kills a deal because of naming conventions. The question is narrower: can this team keep shipping at the pace the model assumes?
I start with the commit history, not the code. Frequency, distribution across people, and how often work gets reverted tell you more about organisational health in twenty minutes than a week of reading source.
Nobody kills a deal over naming conventions. They kill it over a bus factor of two.
Then deployment: who can do it, how long it takes, and what happens when it goes wrong. A team that deploys daily can fix almost any code problem. A team that deploys quarterly cannot fix anything quickly, however clean the code.
Deployment frequency predicts everything else.
The report that week said the stack was unfashionable and entirely fine, and that the actual risk was two engineers holding all the deployment knowledge. The fund invested with a hiring condition attached.
