The Assessment column is what the owner reported and how urgently it reads for them. The Validation column is what the documents support. Where Validation is blank, the evidence did not reach the threshold to score it.
| Domain | Reported | Owner’s priority | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diligence Risk | 6.9 | Moderate | 5.7/10 |
| Owner Risk | 8.0 | Low | — |
| Customer Quality | 10.0 | Low | — |
| Operational Scalability | 7.2 | Moderate | — |
| Financial Readiness | 7.0 | Moderate | — |
| Legal & Regulatory Compliance | 8.4 | Low | — |
| Technology & Systems Maturity | 8.2 | Low | — |
| Human Capital | 6.0 | Moderate | — |
Both tiers declined to publish a number for this company, and that is the whole point of the pair. The self-report was withheld because an answer cannot corroborate itself; the Validation run was withheld because 2 documents are not an evidence base either. Nothing here is broken — evidence is simply the only thing that produces a score, and there was not enough of it on either side.
Severity below is calculated from what you reported, not from what your scores were held to. A criterion answered strongly is treated as strong here even where the score was capped for want of a document — the cap is a statement about evidence, not about your business.
Validation verifies each of these against your documents, scopes the remediation to what your records actually show, and computes your valuation gap from your real EBITDA — the substantiation and the figures a self-reported assessment cannot produce. Engagement pricing comes out of a scoping conversation, once there is a document set to scope against.