01
One evidence discipline
Board materials, reporting packs and decision records are read as signals, not left as scattered documents.
Strategic governance intelligence for private capital
One evidence engine.
Multiple governance decisions.
We convert governance, execution and transaction evidence into decision intelligence — for ownership, oversight and exit-readiness across private and public capital.
ExitLens, AssuranceLens, OversightLens, CovenantLens and TrusteeLens
The platform
Built for the moment governance evidence has to become a decision.
One evidence engine. Distinct lenses for ownership, subsidiary oversight, exit-readiness and assurance.
02
Multiple product lenses
The same discipline, applied to distinct private-capital decisions through Exit, Assurance, Oversight, Covenant and Trustee lenses.
03
Evidence, not self-assessment
BoardCadence tests the governance record for what can actually be supported, rather than asking how governance feels.
04
Quarterly operating cadence
Output is built for review, prioritisation and follow-through—not another one-off advisory deck.
Who it serves
A shared view across the ownership table.
Private capital
Portfolio and ownership visibility
Compare readiness, governance quality and oversight signals across companies without losing the operating context behind each score.
Boards & management
A practical agenda
Turn diffuse governance and reporting concerns into sequenced priorities with accountable owners and visible follow-through.
Committees & HoldCo boards
Claim discipline
See the assessment and the strength of evidence beneath it before relying on a readiness or oversight narrative.
How it works
From evidence pack to board-ready priorities.
BoardCadence starts with the record: submit existing governance and reporting evidence, receive the scored view, and use the output to focus the next quarter's work.
The same workflow can support exit readiness, subsidiary oversight, governance assurance and other evidence-led governance decisions. ExitLens is the current flagship pilot application.
Share the evidence pack
Governance materials, reporting and decision records are organised before management narrative is layered in.
Typical input: existing company records
Receive scored signals and confidence bands
The record becomes decision-specific scores, evidence-confidence ranges and flags where weak evidence changes what can be relied on.
Pilot cadence: quarterly assessment
Review board-ready priorities
Sub-score gaps become sequenced actions for sponsors, boards and management.
Deliverable: readiness view plus actions
Methodology
Evidence first. Claims second.
BoardCadence separates assessed performance from evidence uncertainty. A company does not become better governed because it uploads more PDFs—but the range around what can be claimed should narrow when the evidence improves.
01 · Collection discipline
Start with what exists.
BoardCadence reads the company’s operating record before asking management to explain it. Governance materials, reporting records and decision evidence come first; clarification follows only where needed.
Input
Structured evidence pack
Engine
Indicator-level assessment
Output
Traceable scores and actions
ExitLens · signal snapshot · sample
Q3 2026 · meth v0.9
ERI · PortCo 04
68
B
Band 59–72
+3 QoQ
59
Confidence band
72
| Board effectiveness | 71 |
| Decision accountability | 62 |
| Commercial readiness | 54 |
| Digital, data & AI | NR |
Implication
Operationally credible, still exposed on buyer-facing commercial evidence. Visible follow-through could move the signal toward the low 70s.
Queued actions
- 01Close decision-log gaps before the next pack.
- 02Strengthen commercial evidence for diligence.
- 03Rate digital controls or keep NR visible.
Illustrative sample only. Scoring weights and prompts remain unpublished.
Trust & confidentiality
Clear outputs without exposing the scoring engine.
Sensitive inputs
Built for board packs, reporting records and transaction-sensitive materials.
Visible confidence
Scores are shown with uncertainty, so weak evidence is not hidden.
Protected method
Sample outputs show decision value without disclosing weights or scoring mechanics.
Flagship application
ExitLens
A quarterly governance and exit-readiness assessment for PE-backed portfolio companies. It combines scores, evidence confidence and targeted recommendations—without pretending a single number tells the whole story.
The output is designed to answer a commercial question quickly: which companies are ready for exit, where value may leak, and what should be fixed before exit pressure arrives.
It is the first application of the BoardCadence evidence engine: the platform logic stays common, while the Lens applies it to exit-readiness decisions.
One evidence engine · two views
From boardroom signals to exit readiness.
ERI
The portfolio company’s overall Exit Readiness Index.
BCI
The governance engine inside ERI, also visible as its own monitoring view.
Confidence bands
Evidence uncertainty is shown, not hidden in the score.
Recommendations
Sub-score gaps become prioritised, board-ready actions.
Value linkage
Readiness risks connect to the potential routes through which value can leak.
Ten frameworks
The assessment surface beneath ExitLens.
Ten readiness domains, from board effectiveness through legal, digital and exit-process preparedness.
ExitLens FAQ
Methodology questions, answered plainly.
PE investment teams do not take a governance score on faith. ExitLens is designed to make the evidence base, uncertainty and limits of each assessment visible. The FAQ explains the assessment logic without publishing proprietary scoring weights, prompts or implementation details.
What does ExitLens measure?
ExitLens measures a portfolio company’s governance and exit readiness across frameworks covering board effectiveness, strategic decision process, decision execution, management succession, financial quality, commercial strength, digital and data capability, reporting reliability, legal readiness and exit-process preparedness.
Why these frameworks?
The framework set is grounded in academic research on governance and firm value, including cross-country evidence on board independence reforms, then extended through private-equity governance and transaction practice. ExitLens is explicit about what rests on cited evidence and what rests on practitioner judgment.
Is this a survey, or is it evidence-based?
It is evidence-based. ExitLens scores against documentary evidence such as board minutes, charters, financial statements, cap tables and risk registers, not a self-administered questionnaire. Thin evidence is reflected in the assessment rather than treated as complete.
Where do the weights come from?
The relative weighting across frameworks reflects structured practitioner priors built on private-equity governance and transaction experience. The model is designed to distinguish cited academic evidence from practitioner judgment instead of overstating certainty.
How sensitive is the score to weighting assumptions?
ExitLens runs sensitivity testing by varying weights within realistic bounds and recomputing results to test whether a company’s band remains stable. Where a score sits near a boundary, that uncertainty is disclosed rather than smoothed into a single confident-looking grade.
What stops a company from gaming its own score?
Indicators supported only by thin evidence are capped. Where a framework cannot be evidenced above a defined completeness threshold, it is marked Not Rated or treated conservatively rather than quietly dropped. Withholding evidence makes the output visibly incomplete, not favourably blank.
What is the Value Leakage Bridge?
The Value Leakage Bridge translates governance and readiness gaps into an estimated exit-value impact tier, not a false-precision dollar figure. Tier boundaries are tied to stated evidence where comparable data exists and flagged as practitioner judgment where they do not.
Do you stress-test the methodology?
Yes. ExitLens is reviewed against adversarial questions similar to those a skeptical acquirer, investment committee or external reviewer might ask. Findings are tracked through to verified fixes, so methodology challenge is treated as an ongoing discipline rather than a one-time exercise.
What does the output look like?
ExitLens can be demonstrated end to end on an illustrative sample company: from source documents to framework-level scoring, evidence confidence and index movement. Direct portfolio-company assessments are handled once a sponsor is evaluating ExitLens seriously.
How is portfolio-company data handled?
Assessment data is handled through engagement-scoped access controls. Document extraction is designed to run on a locally hosted model rather than a third-party AI API. Detailed data-handling and security architecture can be reviewed with prospective clients during diligence.
Can we see the code, prompts or database?
Methodology validation is separate from implementation access. The assessment should be trusted because its output is constructed soundly, tested for sensitivity, resistant to gaming and stress-tested. Underlying engineering access is a separate conversation.
How do methodology updates work over time?
Every assessment is tied to a versioned methodology record, so scores produced under different calibration versions remain traceable to the ruleset that generated them.
Lens architecture
One platform. Multiple applications.
Each Lens applies the same evidence engine, then adapts it to a specific decision context.
The underlying frameworks are grounded in external research, professional standards and practitioner review, with calibration expected to deepen as pilot and outcome data accumulate. ExitLens is the flagship pilot application; AssuranceLens and OversightLens are the nearest platform extensions.
Flagship pilot
ExitLens
Quarterly governance and exit-readiness intelligence for PE-backed portfolio companies, with ERI and BCI views.
Pilot phaseGovernance assurance
AssuranceLens
A company-owned governance evidence report for D&O placement and renewal, built from the platform’s governance-evidence methodology. Disclosure remains the company’s choice.
Product horizonSubsidiary oversight
OversightLens
Multi-entity board intelligence for group parents overseeing multiple subsidiaries, or significant minority positions carrying board or observer rights.
Product horizonCredit oversight
CovenantLens
Credit-fund and lender-facing governance intelligence for monitoring covenant-sensitive execution, evidence gaps and board-level follow-through.
Product horizonInstitutional stewardship
TrusteeLens
Governance intelligence for sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and GLICs overseeing strategic holdings and board-seat exposures.
Product horizonBoardCadence
Turn governance evidence into the next decision.
For private-capital teams that need a more disciplined way to measure and improve governance across the portfolio.