Methodology

What it measures

Twelve statements across two dimensions. Each is answered on a four-point scale: not in place, patchy or ad-hoc, true for most holdings, consistently true across the portfolio.

Portfolio GTM operating maturity · 60%

1. Every portco reports GTM on the same core metrics (pipeline, CAC, NRR, win-rate) in a comparable way
2. I can rank my portcos by commercial readiness today — with evidence, not gut feel
3. There is a standard 100-day GTM playbook applied across portcos post-close
4. Each portco has a documented ICP and a quantified value narrative — not just a product deck
5. GTM diligence at entry is as rigorous as the financial diligence
6. A portable RevOps / diagnostic capability serves the portfolio, rather than each portco hiring its own
7. I can see, per portco, the binding GTM constraint (volume / conversion / capacity / pricing)

Value-creation & exit readiness · 40%

1. Each portco's commercial story is underwritten by standardized data a buyer or banker would accept
2. I track GTM-driven value creation (revenue lift attributable to operating work) per portco
3. Cross-portco benchmarking informs where I deploy operating-partner time
4. The portfolio's GTM data is exit-narrative-ready — no 6-month scramble before a process
5. I could hand an LP a defensible, comparable portfolio-GTM readiness view this quarter

How it is scored

Each dimension is the mean of the statements you actually answered, normalised to 0–100. The overall reading is 60% portfolio gtm operating maturity and 40% value-creation & exit readiness. Statements you were not asked are excluded from the mean — never counted as zero.

Why you are not asked all twelve

The flow is adaptive. 4 anchor statements are always asked, covering both dimensions, and the remainder branch toward whichever dimension is scoring lower — that is where the diagnosis is most useful. It stops at 8, with a floor of two answered statements per dimension so both scores stay valid.

How the binding constraint is chosen

The twelve statements group into five capabilities. The lowest-scoring group is named as the constraint. Ties break toward the most upstream group, because fixing a downstream capability while its input is broken does not move the portfolio.

1. Comparability · 3 statements
2. Execution standardisation · 2 statements
3. Operating capacity · 2 statements
4. Entry diligence · 1 statement
5. Attribution and exit defensibility · 4 statements

A group with no answered statements cannot be named as the constraint. An unasked question is not evidence of weakness.

How value at stake is calculated

The basis is a single sourced figure: a 10-point go-to-market execution gap at a $1B mid-market fund with 8 holdings compresses $150M–$300M of exit value. We scale it by fund size and nothing else.

We deliberately do not extrapolate it across your full gap. That ratio is sourced for a ten-point move; multiplying it out across a forty-point gap produces figures larger than the fund itself, which would not survive a single question. So the number shown is what ten points is worth at your fund size, with your headroom stated separately.

It is a ceiling, not a forecast — the figure an operating partner carries into a board review should be one the portfolio exceeds. Where your portfolio shape is far from the 8-holding archetype, the reading says so.

What this does not do

• It is self-reported. The reading reflects your answers about how go-to-market is run, not data read from your holdings' systems. It is a consistent set of definitions, not an independent observation.
• It is portfolio-level. One reading across the holdings, not a scored read of each company.
• There is no benchmark cohort. Your reading is not compared against other funds. We will not publish percentiles until there are enough measured readings to make them mean something.
• It is a starting point. The baseline an engagement works from is co-built and signed with the company's own leadership, from their own numbers. This is the free version of that first step.