AI became your problem anyway.
You carry value creation yourself, without an operating partner. Now the LPs ask about AI in the DDQ, buyers ask in diligence at exit, and the AI wins reported at the boards you chair are exactly the claims you have no independent way to check.
Every road ends with you.
At a fund with an operating partner, the AI mandate at least has a desk to land on. At yours, everything operational ends with the board chair, and across the boards you chair, that is you. The usual fix is one more retained advisor, except every retained relationship the fund keeps already runs through you personally. And becoming the expert yourself is the answer the economics rule out: your hours are the fund’s scarcest resource, and every one spent refereeing AI claims is an hour off the next deal and the next raise.
The seat doesn’t need you to become the expert. It needs an independent read the IC can lean on, with none of your hours in it.
The longer version of the argument: The Satisfaction Gap: Why Sponsors and Their Companies Disagree About AI
| 30 min | the framing call |
| 90 min | the working intake |
| 60 min | the playback |
Everything except your three hours happens off your calendar: the data request goes to an analyst, not to you, and the two weeks of desk work are ours. The finished baseline lands within 48 hours of the playback. Nothing here for you to manage.
One introduction, and it runs without you.
The baseline is free because it is how we choose the clients we build with long-term: we only make money if a client decides to continue. Nothing obligates you, or any board you chair. How we work, from baseline to build
Thirty minutes tells us both whether a baseline fits your fund. If it doesn’t, we’ll say so.
Book the 30-minute framing call