TDI and the Art of the Deal You Don’t Make

The environmental scandal was real. It was also, inconveniently for anyone hoping for an easy answer, out of date. A sustainability fund considering an Indian polyester facility and textiles business asked TDI to investigate reports of environmental violations and forced labor. The target said it complied with local rules. TDI made confidential site visits and spoke with people familiar with its operations. The environmental damage belonged to a previous owner; the current owner had made substantial improvements. Yet the inquiries also found support for forced-labor allegations in the supply chain. The fund declined the investment.

That is a particularly revealing way to meet TDI. One concern weakened under scrutiny. Another became harder to dismiss. The client changed its decision because the relationship between expected return and reputational exposure had changed. A tidy story about a bad company would have been easier to tell. It would also have been less useful.

A bad headline is a beginning

Consider the reverse problem. A US manufacturer’s vendors raised concerns about its principal business agent in Egypt. Corruption accusations can make continuing a relationship uncomfortable long before anyone establishes whether they are true. In TDI’s account, investigators obtained local commentary and traced the agent’s company ownership through records dating to the 1990s. They concluded that the accusations came from politically motivated media coverage and were not substantiated by fact. The manufacturer could reassess the agent on evidence.

Read together, the two cases describe an appealingly unfashionable profession: changing the question when the facts require it. Corporate life rewards the confident presentation. Investigative work has to tolerate the embarrassing possibility that the presentation’s premise is wrong. A scandal may be stale. A compliance assurance may overlook the supplier one level down.

TDI operates in that uncomfortable space between what a business knows and what it has assumed. Its services stretch from commercial diplomacy and geopolitical intelligence to background screening, fraud investigations and asset tracing. The connecting idea is practical: information should affect an actual choice. Buy, negotiate, retain, investigate further, or leave.

“You make wise decisions despite ambiguity.”

TDI’s published value: Judgment

The third option has a Latin name

William Green founded TDI in 1999. His biography describes a career in public and private intelligence, including leadership of the business intelligence firm Parvus International. That background helps explain the company’s interest in people and institutions that do not fit neatly into a transaction spreadsheet.

The name itself contains a small philosophical argument. TDI links it to Tertium Datur, the possibility of a third way, in opposition to the Latin formulation of the law of the excluded third. For a client apparently stuck between abandoning a market and accepting a dangerous partner, additional information may reveal another partner, a different structure or a manageable condition.

That claim has more substance when attached to negotiation than when printed on a brochure. Strategic advisory includes helping clients understand governments and business communities and navigate political or commercial engagement. Risk intelligence examines conditions around market entry, operations and exit. A broad country score can help identify a concern; it cannot tell an investor everything about the people attached to one particular asset.

The asset comes with people attached

A private equity buyer examining a Western Australian mine also had to examine its commodities trading operation. TDI assessed intermediaries and supply-chain relationships, mineral customers and trading counterparties, alongside political and reputational exposure. It also advised on emerging environmental regulation and possible effects on Asia-Pacific trade. A mine’s commercial boundaries extend well beyond its fence.

In Brazil, a sustainability fund considering wind assets and development rights encountered another version of the same problem. TDI identified conflicts and compliance concerns involving real estate critical to valuation and mapped a potential limited partner’s political connections. The reporting helped the deal team assess corruption exposure and negotiate tolling and tariff arrangements with the local public utility. Here, investigation contributed to negotiation rather than a retreat.

These assignments make TDI intelligible as a business. Buyers pay for research and advice when the answer could alter the economics or acceptability of a transaction. Compliance officers and legal teams need documented decisions. Portfolio managers and executives need context they can use. The subject might be a supplier, an executive hire, a prospective acquisition or a partner whose reputation has suddenly become a problem.

Then the investigation becomes a routine

The less cinematic part of this work is keeping it going. In an African energy engagement, TDI helped a private equity firm evaluate markets and power assets, then worked with counsel to build third-party onboarding and compliance procedures. The participants included local labor providers, contractors and commodity traders. Questions had to work across languages and businesses of very different sizes. Later, TDI introduced its cloud platform to automate screening and monitoring and support audits. Its published account describes a relationship lasting almost ten years.

That progression is commercially significant. TDI offers professional services alongside enterprise software. An initial transaction can lead to program design, implementation and continuing risk work. The economic logic is recurring need: the vendors still have to be approved after the asset has been purchased, and the records still have to be found when directors or investment sponsors ask for them.

TDI Diligence Suite brings together Relationship Manager, Screening & Monitoring and Diligence Ordering. It is powered by Salesforce, supports 35 languages and can connect with enterprise systems. The important design choice is the route from automated checks to an analyst investigation. A name match or concerning media report can prompt a deeper inquiry rather than become a verdict by default.

The screening application checks sanctions and watch lists, politically exposed persons and adverse media. Users can flag third parties for daily monitoring. That matters because yesterday’s approval answers yesterday’s question. Ownership, political exposure and public allegations can move while the commercial relationship remains in place.

Intelligence needs someone who can use it

TDI’s market contains established alternatives. Kroll, for example, also offers investigations, due diligence, compliance advice and technology. Combining people and software is consequently insufficient as a claim of uniqueness. TDI’s more specific proposition is the connection between commercial diplomacy, research into counterparties and a configurable compliance process. Its energy cases show those capabilities appearing at different stages of the same investment.

The leadership appointments reinforce that emphasis. Former FBI executive Tom Sobocinski joined as partner in January 2024. Jay Truesdale became CEO that October, bringing strategy advisory experience and diplomatic postings. Eliza Ehrlich, who had led Dubai operations, became a partner in January 2025. Their biographies suggest why a client might want institutional judgment alongside a database search.

Regulation Navigator extends the product line into AI-assisted regulatory management. TDI describes a human-curated process that uses generative AI to summarize government documents and assess effects on uploaded company policies. It follows regulations through their development and eventual retirement. The selling point is the combination of document processing and expert verification; someone in the customer’s organization still needs to own the response.

The approach requires a business willing to act on findings and maintain its information. Poor counterparty records weaken screening. A team that buys a report only to certify a decision already made wastes the interesting part. The first thing to test is therefore the decision process itself: which finding would change the plan, who would assess it, and who could stop or revise the transaction?

TDI’s published advice on compliance costs makes a similarly grounded point. Reexamine distribution networks, insist on a business justification for relationships, and use technology and commercial teams when renewing low-risk third parties. Spending more on every check is a poor substitute for choosing where deeper research matters.

The company’s recent work continues to emphasize changing conditions. In July 2026, its commentary addressed overlooked third-party risks and the limits of point-in-time diligence. By September, TDI reported analysis of Russia-linked hybrid incidents in Europe. The common concern is the gap between having information somewhere and getting it to the person making a decision.

For a reader, the portable habit is simple enough to borrow: write down the question that could change your mind before collecting the answer. Then distinguish an allegation, a corroborated finding and a business judgment. The sustainability fund in India did exactly the consequential part. It allowed the research to spoil an attractive idea.