How can a solo GP venture fund prepare a reference process for LPs?

Prepare references who can speak to specific relevant work, with their permission and without scripting an endorsement. Different people observe sourcing, judgment, collaboration, support, and reporting. Clarify what each reference actually knows.

Start with the decision

Create a reference map by question and relationship. Confirm permission, timing, and the information that may be discussed. Leave room for mixed feedback and avoid treating the process as a collection of universally positive testimonials.

The illustrative scenario

This is an educational workbook. The company or fund and all numerical inputs below are fictional. They are not ADIN results, customer claims, market benchmarks, or a forecast.

The fictional fund has one investment partner and outsourced administrative support. Its strategy depends on a narrow sourcing network and sustained founder relationships. The LP is assessing both that edge and the operating dependencies around one person.

Delegating administration does not answer who makes decisions when the GP is unavailable. Distinguish service-provider tasks, investment authority, and continuity arrangements in the documents.

Turn the scenario into an evidence decision

Consider a review of a solo GP venture fund in which a confident explanation arrives before the supporting records. Start with the first question in the table. Write down what an answer would change: the next interview, the experiment's scope, a request for specialist review, or a decision to wait. A question without a consequence can produce a longer document while adding little understanding.

Next, inspect the record named in the table and record its date, owner, permission boundary, and limitations. Request a responsibility map, service-provider scope, backup procedures, key-person terms, and references about follow-through. Do not infer controls simply because a provider's name appears in a deck. If the record contradicts the explanation, preserve both accounts and ask which definition, period, or workflow differs. Do not silently select the version that makes the opportunity look strongest.

Finish with a conditional statement: if the specified evidence supports the claim under these conditions, take the named next step; otherwise investigate the unresolved question. A candid reference process can help LPs understand both strengths and limitations. It should not suggest that a prior employer, founder, or investor guarantees the new fund's performance or endorses every claim. This worked exercise is about the decision process. It does not assert that a fictional company has met a real diligence standard or that a template can authorize an investment.

Use this worksheet

Answer the questions with a source, date, owner, and next action. Mark an unknown as unknown. Use public or permissioned information and involve a qualified specialist when a question requires expertise beyond the team’s competence.

1. What did the person observe?
2. Which question can they answer?
3. Is permission confirmed?
4. What relationship may bias the view?
5. Which capability lacks a reference?

Questions specific to this scenario

• Who handles an urgent notice?
• Who can make a decision during an absence?
• What responsibilities remain with the GP?

Request a responsibility map, service-provider scope, backup procedures, key-person terms, and references about follow-through. Do not infer controls simply because a provider's name appears in a deck.

A concrete next test

Walk through an absence scenario involving an urgent capital notice and an investment decision. Ask who has information, access, and authority for each task. Document a real backup arrangement instead of assuming the administrator or a friendly adviser can act for the GP.

Interpret the result

A candid reference process can help LPs understand both strengths and limitations. It should not suggest that a prior employer, founder, or investor guarantees the new fund's performance or endorses every claim.

Compare the planned workload with the partner's actual capacity and the fund's decision cadence. Identify work that has an accountable backup and work that does not.

Sources and method

These primary resources provide background for the concepts. The fictional scenario, calculations, and worksheet are ADIN educational examples; the sources do not report or validate those invented results. Reviewed October 11, 2026.

• ILPA: Due Diligence Questionnaire user guide
• Investor.gov: Private Equity Funds