| 9.0–10.0 | Best-in-class; scalable and disciplined. Revenue growth assumptions are credible and the commercial org is a value driver. |
| 7.5–8.9 | Strong; some optimization opportunities. Diligence should identify which pillars are constraining, not if they are. |
| 6.0–7.4 | Functional but inconsistent; likely constraining growth. Execution depends on individual managers, not system. |
| 4.0–5.9 | Material weakness; investment thesis assumptions require stress-testing. Post-close commercial build is required, not optional. |
| Below 4.0 | Dysfunctional or absent. This is a turnaround, not an optimization. Revenue projections must be rebuilt from the ground up. |
The assessment output should appear in the investment memo under Commercial Due Diligence in three distinct sections:
1. Revenue assumption credibility. Map CONTROL and ENLIGHTEN scores directly to the forecast model. A CONTROL score below 6.0 means pipeline-to-revenue conversion assumptions are likely overstated. A CONTROL score above 8.0 provides independent support for revenue projections. Cite specific items — forecasting discipline, stage exit criteria, CRM data quality — as evidence.
2. Thesis risk register. Any item scoring below 4.0 on a 1.5-weight dimension should appear as a named risk with an owner and a 100-day remediation plan. Don't summarize — name the specific item, its score, the business impact, and the required fix.
3. Post-close value creation roadmap. Items scoring 4.0–6.5 on high-weight dimensions are the best post-close value creation surface. These are fixable in 6–18 months and have measurable impact on revenue. Sequence them: CONTROL fixes first (they unlock data quality for everything else), SHAPE second (manager quality and onboarding compound over time), DEFINE third.
Format preference. Use both: a scoring workbook (this tool) for the deal team data room and a structured 5–8 page narrative report for the IC memo. The workbook provides auditability; the narrative provides investment logic. Never present scores alone without the diagnostic narrative — a 6.2 CONTROL score means nothing without explaining whether the root cause is CRM hygiene, forecast process, or management accountability.
Weight flexibility by deal type. The default weights hold well across most deal types. Two exceptions worth flagging: in growth equity deals where the investment thesis is top-of-funnel expansion into new segments, DEFINE should carry 25–30% (not 20%) because ICP clarity and territory design are the primary execution risks. In add-on acquisitions where integration into a platform's sales motion is the plan, SHAPE and CONTROL should increase (25% each) because the playbook portability and management quality questions dominate. EXCITE can flex down to 10% in buyout contexts where comp restructuring is already anticipated post-close — the score will be low and the deal team already knows it needs to be fixed.