The part that doesn't leave when we do.
EVOS is the system that carries the analytical load behind every growth plan we build — the evidence, the scoring, the kill criteria, and the record of why each decision was made. We run our own firm on it. Your companies graduate onto it.
A system, not a hire
The instinct when a portfolio needs growth capability is to hire for it. One operating partner, maybe two, spread across the companies that need attention most.
The arithmetic doesn't cooperate below a certain fund size, and the funds that have tried it mostly know this already — a full bench is uneconomic at this scale, and firms that need the coverage tend to solve it with a database rather than headcount (RA Buyer Profile v2). Even where the hire happens, the hours go where hours always go: a $500M fund spends 20 to 25 of them a month per company on monitoring alone, inside a spreadsheet (RA Buyer Profile v2).
The deeper problem is that a person is a single point of failure holding institutional memory in their head. When they leave — and they leave — the reasoning leaves with them. A system is bought once and applied to every company you own, and it does not resign.
Illustrative. EVOS Focus — the monitoring and pacing load the system carries, so the hours don’t.
The system we run on ourselves
The strongest thing we can say about EVOS is that our own firm depends on it, not as a demonstration, but as the way the work actually gets done.
Every engagement we run is run on it, which means the version your companies graduate onto is the version we depend on, not a productised export of it. That is a different posture from a vendor demonstrating software. We are not asking you to trust a roadmap.
Illustrative. Every answer names the records it used; nothing outside the locked datasets is in scope.
What it does that a monitoring tool doesn't
There is a real category confusion worth clearing, because the market has several things that look adjacent and answer a different question.
Portfolio monitoring platforms tell you what your companies did last quarter — they aggregate reported numbers and render them consistently, which is genuinely useful and entirely backward-looking. Value-creation platforms help execute a plan that already exists; they run the workstreams, assign the owners, track the milestones. Neither forms the plan. And market-intelligence tools surface information without ever carrying accountability for a decision made on it.
EVOS sits upstream of all of that. It assembles the forward evidence — patent filings and prosecution activity, standards and research movement, competitor and channel signals — scores candidate directions against a stated thesis, holds the kill criteria, and keeps the audit trail from evidence to decision.
The single question that separates it from everything else in the category: it reads patents. Ask any adjacent vendor whether theirs does. The honest answer, across the set, is no.
One firm in this market has the analytical capability and won't serve companies at $25M–$60M; another will serve them and lacks the capability. Neither reads patents. That gap is the reason this exists.
Illustrative. EVOS Vision — the plan being formed, not last quarter being reported.
Across a portfolio, not a company
The economics change shape at the fund level, which is the argument for buying it as infrastructure rather than per engagement.
The evidence base compounds. A technology landscape assembled for one portfolio company is substantially reusable for the next one in an adjacent space, so the second company costs less to serve than the first and the tenth costs less again. The scoring discipline is identical across companies, which means for the first time the fund can compare growth directions between portfolio companies on the same basis instead of on the relative persuasiveness of two management presentations.
And the record accumulates. Every direction considered, the evidence behind it, the criteria it was judged against, and what was decided — held in one place, per company, over the whole hold period. Revenue growth is the single largest driver of buyout returns — 54% of them, more than multiple expansion and margin combined — and companies growing 30%+ exit at 4.0x MOIC against 2.3x for everyone else (Gain.pro, across 10,000+ investments). A documented basis for how that growth was chosen is not administrative overhead. It's the exhibit.
Illustrative. The same scoring discipline on every company, which is what makes two of them comparable.
What you end up holding
At the end of a hold, the thing that survives is the reasoning: what was considered, what was rejected and why, what was tried, and what the evidence said at the time. Most companies cannot produce that. The ones that can are describing a managed asset rather than asserting one.
That record is generated as a by-product of using the system, not assembled retrospectively when someone asks for it. Which is the only way it's ever accurate.
Plans don't fail because they were wrong. They fail because nothing tells you when they stopped being right.
A programme that is behind is not a failure; a programme that is behind and undetected for four quarters is. The scoreboard exists so the kill criteria you agreed get checked against what is actually happening rather than against memory, and so the capital behind a bet that isn't working moves to one that is while there is still hold left to deliver it. DPI sits at the lowest level on record and the average hold has stretched to 6.6 years (McKinsey Global Private Markets Report, 2026).
Illustrative. Kill criteria checked against what is actually happening, rather than against memory.
See where your growth comes from
The diagnostic scores your Vision Gap and your Capability Gap separately in about four minutes — one portfolio company, no call, no pitch. It runs on EVOS, so it's also the shortest honest demonstration of what the system does.