What should an LP ask about track-record attribution at a solo GP venture fund?

Track-record attribution asks what the person actually did on each investment. Sourcing, analysis, investment authority, board work, and portfolio support are different contributions. A prior firm's successful investment does not automatically establish every team member's attributable result.

Start with the decision

Request a role-by-deal record with dates and permissioned corroboration. Include the complete relevant set, including unsuccessful investments. Ask qualified advisers about permissions and presentation requirements for prior-employer information.

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. Attribution should make the evidence more specific without manufacturing a personal track record. Where records are unavailable, the limitation belongs in the assessment instead of being filled with a confident narrative. 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. Who sourced the opportunity?
2. Who made the decision?
3. What work did the manager own?
4. Who can corroborate it?
5. What outcomes are included or missing?

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

Attribution should make the evidence more specific without manufacturing a personal track record. Where records are unavailable, the limitation belongs in the assessment instead of being filled with a confident narrative.

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