Built with serious LPs, not for them

This product isn't being designed in a vacuum and shipped at the audience. It's being built alongside the LPs who already do serious diligence the hard way.

Most alts software is built for the people who don't do the diligence.

The existing tooling falls into two camps. Sponsor-side software — built for the GP, sold to the GP, designed to make raising capital easier. And consumer wealth platforms — built for retail, designed to make alts feel approachable, structured around exposure rather than scrutiny.

Neither category serves the LP who actually reviews PPMs. The serious LP — the one who already does some version of the framework, already runs a spreadsheet, already keeps a question list — isn't the customer either category was designed for. They're a constituency without a tool.

That's the gap this product is being built to fill. Not for retail. Not for the GP. For the LP who would build this tool themselves if they had the time.

What 'with' means in practice.

Founding-cohort LPs shape what gets built next. The framework's red-flag rules, the question bank, the brief template — every one of those gets tested against real PPMs from real LPs, and what survives is what the cohort actually used to make decisions.

That feedback loop is the thing that's hard to replicate later. A product built against synthetic deals reads as one — clean, structured, hollow. A product built against the actual messy documents serious LPs are reviewing this quarter reads differently. The wear shows up in the right places.

It also means the product opinions are LP opinions, not vendor opinions. "Tool, not adviser" isn't a positioning trick — it's what the cohort actually wants. Anchored in the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 carve-out for publishers of general, non-personalized information, the product describes facts and gaps. It doesn't recommend actions.

What we're asking for. What you get.

Founding LPs get free access through the beta window, a direct line on feature requests, and early shape on a product built specifically for how they already work.

What we're asking for: drop real PPMs into the system, tell us where the brief is wrong or incomplete, use the case-management layer across three to five deals so we can see whether the second-deal-with-a-known-sponsor leverage actually materializes, and give us your DD rubric. If there's a question you always ask that isn't in the framework, we want it — and soon, you'll be able to add it yourself, asked of every sponsor and run against every uploaded document.

The cohort is small by design. Sophisticated, allocates to alts, already running some kind of diligence rubric, frustrated by the spreadsheet-and-email workflow. If that's you, the door is open. If you run enough volume to care about the hundred-to-one ratio being broken, you're the LP this is being built for.