Identify the workflows worth funding, the AI risks worth containing, and the 90-day portco plan your IC can underwrite.
Most portcos have AI activity. The missing piece is proof: what moves value, what creates risk, and what the board can defend this quarter.
Which AI opportunities can move revenue, margin, cycle time, quality, headcount leverage, and produce legible value-capture proof the IC can underwrite.
Which assets, workflows, vendor dependencies, shadow-AI exposures, and unread agents are eroding the asset or sitting on the buyer-diligence file.
Whether the portco's people can actually run the AI work, and where role redesign is the bottleneck, not the model.
The audit memorandum, the materiality threshold, the working papers. What the board, the audit committee, and the buyer can rely on at exit.
The stall is not a lack of tools. It is pilots without priority, risk without an owner, and no evidence the board can act on.
Tools and vendor demos multiply before the deal team names the workflows that matter to the value thesis.
The CIO owns the mandate. Security and hold-co IT contain exposure. The sponsor avoids new risk without clear upside.
The board needs a value/risk read, not more AI activity.
Each deliverable is grouped by the reader it supports: capture-side proof, risk-side proof, the audit-memorandum spine, and the workforce read.
The old hold-period arc is gone. The first useful output is the two-week audit, followed by a 90-day portco plan and repeatable portfolio playbook.
Audit usage, workflows, tools, data exposure, AI risks, and value hypotheses.
Board/IC readout, value-capture file, risk register, and 90-day plan.
Ship 1-2 instrumented workflows at a selected portco.
Turn first-portco evidence into a repeatable portfolio playbook.
Start at the portco. Roll the evidence up to the fund, board, and audit committee.
Needs a focused AI plan they can take to the board without creating security sprawl.
Needs a portfolio view of where AI can move value and where risk is concentrating.
Needs the first workflows sequenced, instrumented, and shipped with contained technical risk.
Needs an audit-style read: opinion, materiality threshold, exceptions, and remediation.
From the audit, AI Transformation and AI Governance run side-by-side. AI Fluency runs underneath as the workforce track where the workflow actually changes.
Two weeks. See AI value, AI risk, usage, and workflow reality across the portco. Issue the audit memorandum with opinion and materiality threshold.
Ship the workflows most likely to move the value thesis. Revenue, margin, cycle time, quality, headcount leverage. Instrumented from day one so the IC can underwrite the lift.
Defensible decisions, framework-mapped evidence, continuous evals, and the working papers behind the opinion. What the board, audit committee, and buyer rely on.
Raise role-level capability on the workflows that actually changed. Where fluency is the bottleneck, not the model.
Discovery call. Calendar link within 60 seconds.
No. The first useful output is the two-week AI Audit. The 90-day plan is about choosing and instrumenting the first workflows that can move value.
No. Implementation partners ship AI work. TrustEvals tells the fund and portco what is worth funding, what risk must be contained, and what evidence belongs in the board and diligence file.
Different layer. Those platforms map how the work runs: the process graph, the workarounds, the hand-offs. We read what the AI is doing inside those workflows, whether it is compounding on the asset or exposing it, and what proof an underwriter would accept. Discovery platforms feed implementation. We feed the value/risk read the board, the audit committee, and the buyer rely on. Many portcos will use both.
Value-creation OS platforms own planning, tracking, and reporting across every initiative in the portfolio. We are the AI-specific audit and evidence layer that feeds those systems. Where a value-creation OS asks whether the initiative is on track, we answer whether the AI inside the initiative is an asset or a liability, and what would survive an underwriter's read.
Yes. That is the default routing: portco-up. Start with one portco, prove the value/risk file, then roll the pattern up to the fund.
Nothing it does not want to. Engagements contain at the portco level and roll up to the portfolio for the Operating Partner view. The hold-co IT layer does not take on additional SOC 2 surface area.
A portfolio-readable summary: value opportunities, risk concentration, workflow priorities, and evidence suitable for IC, LP, audit-committee, and board review.
It creates a buyer-diligence story before the process starts: what AI changed, what risk was controlled, and what proof supports the claim. The audit memorandum is the same shape the buyer's diligence team is already trained to read.
The TrustEvals AI Audit delivers one of four opinion categories: clean, qualified with exceptions noted, adverse/do not extend, or scope limitation. This is a TrustEvals AI Audit opinion, not statutory financial audit assurance. Materiality threshold is set jointly with the customer at kickoff and lands in the engagement letter. A finding above the threshold is an audit exception; a finding below lands in the appendix.
