When a Big 4 firm takes on a PQC engagement, the pattern is predictable: a partner sells the deal, a manager scopes it, and a team of junior consultants executes it. The assessment relies on interviews with your engineering teams, manual documentation review, and spreadsheets that catalog what your staff tells them you have deployed.
This approach has three fundamental problems. First, it depends on institutional knowledge that is often incomplete — your teams may not know every cryptographic asset across every system. Second, it cannot provide provider-aligned forward-threat validation because Big 4 firms do not operate governed validation workflows. Third, the output is a static report that ages immediately, not a continuously updated remediation roadmap.
The result is an expensive engagement that tells you what you already suspected — you have quantum risk — without mapping the specific assets, prioritizing the remediation, or proving the findings with reviewable validation evidence.