Your growth plan already exists. This is how it stays alive.
If your sponsor brought us in during diligence, the work is already done — the directions scored, the evidence assembled, the criteria named. What decays after that is not the plan. It is the currency of the evidence underneath it.
You did not commission this, and that is worth saying plainly
Most likely your sponsor engaged us before the transaction closed, which means you inherited a piece of work you did not scope. That is an awkward way to meet anybody.
So two things about how this was built. The output belongs to your leadership team, not to the fund — you present it, you defend it, you decide which bets get made. And nothing in it is an assessment of you. It scores markets, technologies and adjacencies. There is no section about management, because we were never asked to write one and would have declined.
If it is useful, use it. If it is wrong in places, the evidence behind every conclusion is traceable, so you can show exactly where and why. How the work was done →
What goes stale, and how fast
A growth plan is a set of bets against a market that keeps moving. The bets stay valid until the ground under them shifts — and the shift usually shows up in places nobody at a $40M company is watching.
Patents publish eighteen months after filing, so a competitor's intent becomes visible long before their product does. Standards move. A company two sectors over enters your adjacency from an angle nobody modelled. None of that is hard to see if someone is looking. The problem is that nobody is: at a $500M fund, 20 to 25 hours a month per company go into monitoring and reporting rather than looking forward, and that work sits in a spreadsheet (RA Buyer Profile v2).
Plans do not fail because they were wrong. They fail because nothing tells you when they stopped being right.
What the system does once it is yours
EVOS holds the evidence base your plan was built on, and keeps it current. Filings and prosecution activity in and adjacent to your technical space. Standards and research movement. Competitor product and hiring signals. The kill criteria you agreed, checked against what is actually happening rather than against memory.
And it holds the record. Every direction considered, the evidence behind it, the criteria it was judged against, and what was decided. That accumulates over the whole hold, as a by-product of using the system rather than as something assembled retrospectively when somebody asks. What EVOS is →
The analytical load sits with the system; the judgement stays with your team. That split is the reason the economics work at your size at all.
Why this is worth your own budget
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).
Read that as an owner rather than an investor. The growth line is what your equity is priced on, and at exit a buyer pays for two different things: the number, and whether you can show how you got it. Most companies can produce the number. Very few can produce the reasoning — what was considered, what was rejected, why, and what the evidence said at the time.
The company that can is describing a managed asset. The company that cannot is asserting one. That difference is visible in a data room, and it is the cheapest premium available to you.
And if no sponsor brought us in
The same method runs without a transaction attached. Sixteen weeks, on your company, commissioned by you. Nothing about it requires a deal to be in progress, and nothing requires your investors to be involved. The growth engagement →
Find out which gap is load-bearing
The diagnostic scores your Vision Gap and your Capability Gap separately in about four minutes. One company, no call, no pitch — and you keep the score whether or not you speak to us.