Pillar
Portfolio Efficiency
The decisions that make up a fund are taken separately and have to agree. The cheque it can write, the ownership it wants, the scope it declared and the reserve it holds are chosen in different conversations, and they either add up to one executable strategy or they do not.
6 pages
The five subscores
- Does your check size still match your fund sizeWhether the cheque a fund can actually write, after reserves and across its target portfolio count, buys a real position at the stage the fund invests at.
- Can you actually get the ownership you are targetingWhether a fund's target ownership is available at the stage it enters: where the 20 percent convention came from, the identity underneath it, the dilution gap most constructions carry, and the case that ownership does not matter at all.
- Is your thesis wider than your portfolio can coverWhether a fund's declared industry scope and the portfolio it intends to build describe the same fund, and why the mismatch runs in both directions.
- Are you configured for the fund you are actually onWhether a fund's configuration matches the lifecycle stage its firm has declared, across four indicators, plus what pacing actually tells a General Partner.
- Can your team run the strategy you have declaredWhether the team can run the investment practice the fund has declared, across lead practice, board seat practice, portfolio count, and team size.
How to read this engine
Efficiency here means coherence rather than thrift. The engine is not asking whether the fund spends carefully. It is asking whether the fund's configuration describes one executable strategy, given the stage it enters at and the lifecycle stage the firm has declared. The five subscores are not independent of one another in practice, which is why moving a single input often moves several at once: a change to portfolio count really does change the cheque, the scope fit, and the team load simultaneously.
Composite Efficiency Index
How coherently a fund's configuration choices fit together for its lifecycle stage. A 0 to 100 headline built from the five subscores, and the reading to start with. Return per Unit of Variance and the Consistency Score sit beside it and read the shape of the outcome distribution the configuration implies.
A Composite Efficiency Index means little on its own, because the same number carries different weight at different lifecycle stages. It is shown against its cohort context: the median and top-quartile values for funds at the same lifecycle stage. Those reference values are currently provisional rather than empirical, and the platform says so where it shows them: Provisional benchmark values, pending calibration as the cohort grows. They become empirical once enough funds at a given lifecycle stage are on the platform to compute them honestly.
None of the three readings is a quality judgment about the fund or a prediction about its returns. A high Composite Efficiency Index says the configuration's parts fit each other; it does not say the strategy is a good one, that the market will reward it, or that the team will execute it. The engine also reads declared configuration rather than realized portfolio, and the gap between the two is what configuration drift describes.