Altss Private Markets Taxonomy & Classification Standard

1. Purpose

This standard defines how Altss names, identifies and classifies the concepts in its private-markets reference library: the glossary, the taxonomy hubs and the frameworks that link to them. It exists so that one concept has one definition, one identifier and one canonical page, and so that a reader can tell what kind of thing a term denotes before reading the definition.

Private-markets vocabulary mixes several kinds of thing under similar names. "Private credit" is a market segment, "direct lending" a strategy within it, "unitranche" an instrument, a "business development company" a vehicle, and a "general partner" can mean either a legal entity or the firm behind it. Many reference sources classify these in a single flat category list. That produces pages that compare unlike things and filters that return the wrong set. This standard separates the dimensions and states the rules for placing a concept on each one.

The standard is normative. It describes how concepts are classified, not how many concepts exist or how any Altss product uses them.

2. Scope

In scope

• Concepts in the Altss reference library: terms, metrics, processes, strategies, structures, instruments, regulations, documents, roles, standards and Altss-defined concepts.
• The facet scheme, the primary-facet rule and the difference between facets and navigation hubs.
• Concept identifiers, canonical names, aliases and anchor concepts.
• Classification rules for the distinctions most often confused in private markets.
• Labelling of Altss-defined concepts.
• Crosswalks to external classification systems and standards.
• Versioning and change control for the scheme and for individual concepts.

Out of scope

• Classification of individual organisations, funds or people (for example, whether a named organisation is a single-family office). Entity-level classification follows the Family Office Classification Standard and the Institutional Allocator Classification Standard. Whether two records are the same organisation is governed by the Entity Resolution Methodology.
• Industry classification of operating companies. Altss crosswalks to external industry systems (section 12) but does not publish its own industry code list.
• Legal definitions. Where a term has a statutory meaning (for example a qualified purchaser or the SEC Family Office Rule), the concept page states the legal definition with its jurisdiction and source; this standard only governs how the concept is classified.

3. Definitions

• Concept. A unit of meaning with one definition. A concept is not a word: one concept can have several labels, and one label can name several concepts in different contexts.
• Canonical concept. The single registry entry that carries the definition, identifier and page for a concept. Every other label for it is an alias.
• Label. Any string used to name a concept: the canonical name, an acronym, a spelling variant, a plural, a translation, a market synonym.
• Alias. A label that resolves to a canonical concept and has no page of its own.
• Anchor concept. A distinct concept with its own identifier whose explanation lives as a headed section inside a parent concept's page, because it cannot be explained usefully apart from the parent.
• Facet. One dimension of classification: what kind of thing a concept is. Each facet has a stable three-letter code.
• Primary facet. The one facet that answers "what is this, first of all". Every concept has exactly one.
• Secondary facet. Any further facet that also applies.
• Domain (hub). A navigation grouping used to build topic hubs. Hub membership does not classify a concept.
• Concept ID. The permanent identifier of a canonical concept, in the form ALTSS-<DOMAIN>-<NNN>.
• Authority. Who defines the concept: industry practice, a regulator or legislator, academic literature, or Altss.
• Altss-defined concept. A concept whose definition Altss authors and which is not an industry standard term (authority = Altss). See section 6.7.
• Crosswalk. A mapping from an Altss concept to a concept or code in an external system, typed by the nature of the match.

Related glossary entries: canonical entity, disambiguation, data normalization, industry classification systems.

4. Inputs and source types

Classification decisions rest on three kinds of input, in this order of precedence:

1. Defining sources. The legislation, regulation, standard or recognised industry body that defines a term: for example a statute or rule for a regulatory concept, the ILPA Principles for an LP-rights concept, the IPEV Valuation Guidelines for a valuation concept, the GIPS standards for a performance-presentation concept. Where a defining source exists, its definition governs the concept's scope.
2. Recognised practice and literature. Peer-reviewed research and established practitioner usage, where no single body defines the term. Usage is established from several independent sources, not one.
3. Altss editorial judgement. Used only to choose between competing usages, to split or merge concepts, and to assign facets. Every such decision is recorded with its reason in the concept's change history.

Sources are cited according to the Research Citation Standard. Commercial data providers' glossaries are not defining sources for general terms; they may be cited only for the definition of their own products or proprietary classifications.

5. Method

5.1 Facet scheme. The ontology classifies concepts on 33 facets. A concept may carry several facets; exactly one is primary. Facets classify what a concept IS, not which hub it appears in. Codes are three letters and stable.

5.2 One primary facet. Each concept receives exactly one primary facet. The primary facet answers the question a reader would ask first: "what kind of thing is this?". Secondary facets record every other dimension on which the concept genuinely sits. A general partner is primarily a manager type (MGT) and secondarily an entity type (ENT) and a role (ROL). A multi-family office is primarily an allocator type (ALC) and secondarily an intermediary (INT), because it also allocates on behalf of client families.

5.3 Facets classify; domains navigate. The ontology also assigns every concept to one or more of 23 navigation domains: PRIVATE-MARKETS, PRIVATE-EQUITY, VENTURE, PRIVATE-CREDIT, REAL-ESTATE, INFRASTRUCTURE, SECONDARIES, FAMILY-OFFICES, INSTITUTIONAL-INVESTORS, INDEPENDENT-SPONSORS, SEARCH-FUNDS, EMERGING-MANAGERS, PERFORMANCE, PORTFOLIO-CONSTRUCTION, FUND-TERMS, FUND-STRUCTURES, FUNDRAISING, DUE-DILIGENCE, FUND-OPERATIONS, VALUATION, LEGAL-REGULATORY-TAX, DATA-OSINT and HEDGE-FUNDS. Topic hubs are built from domains, but a domain does not by itself create a hub page: a hub exists only where it carries meaningful structured navigation. A concept may appear in several domains and hubs. Domain and hub membership say where a reader is likely to look for a concept. They never say what the concept is, and no rule in this standard may be satisfied by domain or hub membership.

5.4 Concept IDs. Every canonical concept, including anchor concepts and Altss-defined concepts, receives an identifier ALTSS-<DOMAIN>-<NNN>:

• ALTSS is a fixed prefix.
• <DOMAIN> is an allocation namespace: a short uppercase code for the subject area in which the concept was first registered, for example PERF (performance), CREDIT (private credit), DATA (evidence and data) or INTEL (Altss-defined intelligence concepts).
• <NNN> is a zero-padded sequence number within that namespace.

Examples from the registry: ALTSS-PERF-001 is internal rate of return; ALTSS-DATA-024 is entity resolution; ALTSS-INTEL-009 is Source Confidence (Altss).

5.5 IDs are permanent and opaque. Once assigned, an ID:

• is never reused for another concept, including after the concept is retired;
• is never renumbered to close gaps (gaps in a sequence are expected and carry no meaning);
• does not change when the concept is reclassified, renamed or moved to another hub, because the facet list, not the ID, carries the current classification;
• does not change when the page URL (slug) changes; the ID belongs to the concept, not to the slug;
• carries no meaning beyond identity. Software and readers must not parse the namespace as a classification or the number as an order of importance.

5.6 One canonical concept per distinct meaning. Two labels denote the same concept when they have the same definition and pick out the same set of things. They then share one canonical entry; every other label becomes an alias. Two labels denote different concepts when any member of one is not a member of the other, or when their definitions differ in a way a practitioner would act on. Different concepts get different entries, even when the labels are used loosely as synonyms; the pages then state the difference explicitly ("not the same as").

5.7 Aliases resolve to the canonical. Acronyms (IRR), expansions, plurals (family offices), spelling variants (adviser/advisor, capitalisation/capitalization), word-order variants, hyphenation variants and market synonyms that pass the test in 5.6 are aliases. An alias has no page of its own. A request for an alias resolves to the canonical page. One alias can belong to only one canonical concept within a context; if a label is genuinely ambiguous (for example "GP" for the legal general partner entity and for the manager firm), the canonical page carries a disambiguation note and the label resolves to the concept that is meant most often in private-markets usage.

5.8 Anchor concepts. A concept that is distinct (it passes 5.6) but cannot be explained without its parent is an anchor concept. It receives its own ID and appears as a section headed with its own name inside the parent page; its label resolves to that section. Examples: the management fee page carries the fee base and fee step-down as anchor concepts. An anchor concept is promoted to its own page when it acquires enough independent substance; its ID does not change.

5.9 Authority attribute. Every concept records who defines it: industry (established market practice), regulatory (a statute, regulation or regulator), academic (research literature) or altss_defined. A regulatory concept cites its defining source and states its jurisdiction. An Altss-defined concept follows 6.7.

5.10 Comparison pages. Where two concepts are commonly confused, a comparison page may exist (for example DPI vs TVPI). A comparison page has an ID so it can be referenced, but it never redefines either concept; each side links to its own canonical entry.

6. Classification rules

These rules settle the distinctions that cause most category errors in private-markets reference material. Each states a test; when the test is passed, the facet follows.

6.1 Asset class vs strategy vs sub-strategy. An asset class (ACL) is a market segment defined by the kind of claim or asset held: equity in private companies, loans to private borrowers, interests in property, infrastructure assets. A strategy (STR) is a way of earning a return within one or more asset classes: buying control positions with leverage, lending directly to companies, buying distressed debt. A sub-strategy (SST) is a recognised finer cut of a strategy. Test: if the term describes what is owned, it is an asset class; if it describes how and with what risk position it is owned, it is a strategy. Private credit is ACL; direct lending is STR; sponsor finance is SST. A strategy is never filed as an asset class because a hub groups them together.

6.2 Strategy vs instrument. An instrument (INS) is a contract or security: unitranche, preferred stock, a SAFE. A strategy uses instruments; it is not one. A fund that "does unitranche lending" follows a direct-lending strategy using a unitranche instrument.

6.3 Strategy vs vehicle. A vehicle (VEH) is a legal and economic wrapper for capital: a closed-end fund, an evergreen fund, a separately managed account, an SPV. The same strategy can be run through different vehicles, and the same vehicle type can hold different strategies. Co-investment is a strategy (investing alongside a sponsor in a specific deal); the SPV that holds the co-investment is a vehicle. Some market labels name both a way of investing and the wrapper used for it, such as fund of funds or continuation vehicle. These carry both facets; the primary facet follows the sense the label most often carries in practice, and the page states the other sense.

6.4 Transaction type vs deal terms. A transaction type (TXN) is a kind of deal: a leveraged buyout, a carve-out, a secondary buyout. Deal terms (DTM) are mechanisms inside a deal's documents: an earnout, rollover equity, a purchase-price adjustment. Fund-level terms set in a limited partnership agreement belong to fund economics (ECO) or governance (GOV), not to DTM.

6.5 Allocator vs intermediary vs manager. These three are the most commonly confused facets and the rule is strict.

• An allocator (ALC) owns the capital, or holds it as a fiduciary for its own beneficiaries, and bears the investment outcome: a pension fund, an endowment, a foundation, a sovereign wealth fund, an insurance general account, a family office acting for its family.
• An intermediary or service provider (INT) advises on, distributes, administers or allocates capital that belongs to someone else: an investment consultant, an OCIO, a placement agent, a fund administrator. An OCIO with full discretion still allocates someone else's capital, so it is INT, not ALC.
• A manager (MGT) sponsors and manages pooled vehicles or accounts and earns fees and, often, carried interest: a general partner or management company, a fund manager, an independent sponsor. A fund-of-funds manager selects other funds but is a manager, because the capital belongs to its own investors.

Test: whose balance sheet bears the result, and who decides? If the entity's own (or its beneficiaries') capital bears the result, ALC. If it decides or advises for a client who bears the result, INT. If it runs a vehicle for outside investors and is paid by them, MGT. Where an organisation type does more than one of these, all facets are recorded and one is primary (the multi-family office in 5.2).

6.6 Role vs entity type. A role (ROL) is a position one party holds in relation to another. Limited partner is a role: the same organisation can be a limited partner in one fund and the general partner of another. "Limited partner" is therefore not an allocator type, and a list of "limited partners" is a list of parties to commitments, not a list of allocator types. Job titles (CIO, principal, operating partner) are roles held by people.

6.7 Altss-defined concepts. A concept that Altss defines (allocator behaviour, decision timing, relationship strength, source confidence, signal classes and similar) is classified under AIC as its primary facet and carries authority = altss_defined. It is labelled as follows:

• the first sentence of its page states that the definition is the one Altss uses and is not an industry standard;
• where the same words have an established industry meaning, the canonical name carries the qualifier "(Altss)", for example Source Confidence (Altss), distinct from the general data term confidence score;
• the page states what observable evidence the concept rests on and how it must not be interpreted;
• an Altss-defined concept is never presented as a market convention, never placed in an industry facet as its primary facet, and never crosswalked to an external standard as "exact".

Established data and intelligence terms (provenance, entity resolution, precision and recall) are not Altss-defined; they sit in EVD even when Altss applies them in a specific way. The Altss-specific application is then stated in an Altss standard or methodology, not in the general definition.

6.8 Process vs document vs event. A process (due diligence, fundraising, a capital call as a procedure) is not the document it produces or uses (a DDQ, a private placement memorandum, a capital call notice), and neither is the dated event that marks it (a first close). Each is classified on its own facet: due diligence is DDL; a DDQ is DDL with FRI and is a document; a fund close as an event is LIF with SIG.

6.9 Fund vs manager. A fund is a vehicle (VEH) and, when it is a legal person, an entity (ENT). The manager is a separate organisation (MGT). A fund's name often contains its manager's name ("Example Capital Partners III, L.P." managed by "Example Capital Management, LLC"); the shared name never makes them the same concept or the same entity. A fund has a vintage, a size and a term; a manager has funds, staff and a track record across them.

6.10 GP entity vs management company. In a limited partnership, the general partner is a legal entity, often formed for a single fund, that holds the fund's management authority and usually receives carried interest. The management company is the operating firm that employs the investment team, receives the management fee and, in the United States, is commonly the registered or exempt reporting investment adviser. They are different legal entities with different economics. In everyday usage "the GP" also refers to the manager firm as a whole; the general partner page states both senses, and any classification must record which one is meant.

6.11 Performance metric vs underwriting metric. Performance measures (PRF) describe returns of funds, portfolios or managers, such as IRR and TVPI. Underwriting metrics (MET) describe a single asset or loan, such as cap rate or a leverage multiple. A deal-level metric reported at fund level (for example, a weighted average leverage across a credit portfolio) remains MET; its aggregation does not make it a performance measure.

6.12 Compound labels. A label that only combines facets ("European mid-market buyout") is not a new concept. It is expressed as a strategy (buyout), a size band and a geography (GEO). A compound label becomes a concept only when the market uses it with a meaning that cannot be reconstructed from its parts.

6.13 Names never classify. The facet of a concept, like the role of an entity, is decided by its definition and evidence, never by words in its name. A term containing "fund" is not necessarily a vehicle ("fund finance" is a lending strategy); a term containing "capital" is not necessarily a manager.

7. Conflict handling

7.1 Defining source vs market usage. Where a regulator or standard setter defines a term and market usage differs, the concept page gives the defining source's definition first, with jurisdiction and effective date, then the market usage, labelled as such. If the two usages pick out different sets of things, they are two concepts (5.6). "Family office" in the US SEC rule and "family office" in market usage is the standard example: the page states the rule's definition and the broader market sense separately.

7.2 Conflicting defining sources. Where two authoritative bodies define a term differently (for example across jurisdictions), the page states each definition with its source and scope. Altss does not choose a winner across jurisdictions; it records that the term is jurisdiction-dependent.

7.3 Facet disputes. When a concept could reasonably take more than one primary facet, the editor applies the tests in section 6 in order. If the tests do not settle it, the primary facet follows the sense used most often in the defining sources, the other facets are recorded as secondary, and the reason is written into the change history. A facet dispute never produces two pages for one concept.

7.4 Legacy duplicates. Where two existing pages describe the same concept, one is kept as canonical and the other becomes an alias; useful, correct content is carried into the canonical page. Where two existing pages share a title but describe different concepts, both are kept and each carries a disambiguation note.

8. Confidence and limitations

• A facet assignment is a classification judgement made under the rules above. It is reviewable and can change; the concept ID does not change with it.
• The scheme classifies concepts, not organisations. That a concept "family office" is ALC does not establish that any particular organisation calling itself a family office is an allocator; that is an evidence question for the entity classification standards.
• Facets are not mutually exclusive by design. Tools that require a single category must use the primary facet and must not infer that a concept lacks its secondary facets.
• Market usage changes. A term that is a strategy today may be used later as a product or vehicle label; such shifts are handled by adding facets and stating the new sense, not by re-identifying the concept.
• The scheme is not a complete map of finance. Concepts with no private-markets relevance are out of scope, even where they are part of an external classification.

9. Temporal rules

• Concept dates. Each concept records the date its page was last reviewed and its content version. A review date says the page content was checked against its sources on that date; it says nothing about any organisation or market fact.
• Regulatory concepts record the effective date of the rule they describe and any pending or recent change (for example a threshold adjustment or a compliance date moved). When a rule changes, the page states the current rule with its date and keeps the history.
• Retirement. A concept that leaves the library is retired, not deleted: its ID is kept, its page is replaced by a notice that points to the successor concept (where there is one), and its aliases are reassigned or retired with it.
• Effective classification. A facet change takes effect from the version in which it is recorded. Earlier versions of the scheme remain citable by version number.

10. Edge cases

• Same label, different concepts. "Secondaries" names a market segment (ACL), a set of strategies (STR) and, through "secondary transaction", a transaction type (TXN). One concept page covers the segment; strategy and transaction senses have their own entries and are cross-linked.
• "Hedge fund." The term names both a vehicle type and, in allocation tables, an asset class. The concept records both facets; the page explains that "hedge funds" as an allocation bucket is a vehicle-defined category rather than an asset-defined one.
• Allocator and investment office. A university or a corporate sponsor may own the capital while a separate investment office or investment company manages it. The asset-owner concept (endowment) is ALC; an entity that invests for the institution is described through a relation ("invests for"), not by reclassifying either concept.
• Family office judgement. Whether a single-family office or a multi-family office is primarily an allocator or an intermediary depends on whose capital it manages. The concept pages state the test; applying it to a named organisation is outside this standard.
• Terms of art inside one document family. "Commitment" means one thing in a fund's LPA (a legal obligation to fund capital calls) and another in a credit agreement (a lender's undertaking to lend). These are separate concepts with a disambiguation note.
• Acronym collisions. An acronym that names unrelated concepts in different fields (for example "NAV" for a fund's net asset value and for NAV lending, which is secured on that value) is an alias of the private-markets concept used most often, and the canonical page links the other.
• Translated labels. A translation is an alias only if the legal or market concept is the same. A foreign legal form (for example a Luxembourg special limited partnership) that resembles a US limited partnership is a separate VEH concept, crosswalked as "close" or "related", not "exact".

11. Worked examples

Example 1: a proposed new term. A contributor proposes adding "NAV facility" as a new concept. The registry already holds NAV lending, defined as a loan to a fund secured on the net asset value of its portfolio, with a primary facet of INS and a secondary facet of STR. Test 5.6: "NAV facility" has the same definition and picks out the same loans, so it is an alias of the existing concept and receives no ID. If market usage later needs the activity (a lender's NAV-lending business) defined separately from the loan, the editor splits them: the existing concept keeps its ID and the new concept receives a new one, with the activity sense classified as a sub-strategy (SST) of fund finance under rule 6.2, and both pages state the difference.

Example 2: an allocator-type error. A list labels an outsourced CIO as a "pension allocator" because it manages pension assets. Test 6.5: the pension plan's beneficiaries bear the result, and the OCIO decides for its client. The OCIO is INT. The pension plan is ALC. They are related ("advises" or "manages for"), and neither classification is changed by the relationship.

Example 3: fund vs manager vs GP entity. A fund's limited partnership agreement names "Example Growth GP II, LLC" as general partner of "Example Growth Fund II, L.P.", and the adviser's Form ADV lists the fund as a private fund advised by "Example Growth Management, LLC". Three concepts apply to three different things: a fund (VEH, ENT), a GP entity (ENT, in the legal sense of general partner) and a management company (MGT). Whether they are distinct organisations is an identity question answered by registry identifiers under the Entity Resolution Methodology, not by their shared name.

Example 4: an Altss-defined term. "Allocation fatigue" is an Altss-defined name for a pattern in an allocator's commitment record. It has no industry-standard definition. It is classified AIC with authority = altss_defined, its page opens by saying it is an Altss-defined concept, and it is not crosswalked to any external standard as an exact match.

Example 5: an ID through a rename. A concept page is renamed and its slug changes. Its concept ID stays the same; the old slug becomes an alias that resolves to the new page. If the concept is later merged into another, the absorbed ID is retired (never reused) and recorded as superseded on the surviving concept.

12. External references

Crosswalk policy. The Altss ontology is the classification Altss uses. External systems are mapped to it; they never replace it, and no external code is used as a concept ID.

• Mapping types. Each crosswalk entry states the relation: exact (same meaning and extent), close (same meaning, minor differences of scope), broader (the external concept is broader), narrower (the external concept is narrower) or related (associated, not hierarchical).
• Versioned targets. A crosswalk records the external system's name, revision identifier and the code or provision it maps to. When the external system is revised, the mapping is reviewed against the new revision and the old mapping is kept with its revision.
• Industry classifications. Concepts and entities may be mapped to NAICS (the North American Industry Classification System; the 2022 edition is current and a 2027 revision has been proposed), SIC (the Standard Industrial Classification, which the SEC still uses in EDGAR to indicate a registrant's type of business), NACE (the EU statistical classification of economic activities; NACE Rev. 2.1 applies to statistical data for reference periods from 1 January 2025, with domain-specific derogations) and ISIC (the UN International Standard Industrial Classification; Revision 5 was endorsed in 2023, while Revision 4 remains in wide use during the transition). These are public classifications; codes and titles may be cited with their revision. A crosswalk to a system in transition names the revision it uses.
• Licensed classifications. GICS (the Global Industry Classification Standard) is proprietary to MSCI and S&P Dow Jones Indices, and reproduction or commercial use requires a licence. Altss may reference GICS by name and record that a mapping exists where its use is licensed; it does not reproduce GICS definitions, structure or code lists in public reference content. The same rule applies to any other proprietary classification.
• Private-markets standards. Concepts that a standard setter defines are mapped to that standard: the ILPA Principles and ILPA reporting templates for LP rights, fees and reporting; the IPEV Valuation Guidelines for valuation; the GIPS standards for performance presentation. The concept page uses the standard's definition where one exists and cites the edition.
• What a crosswalk does not do. A crosswalk does not import the external system's facet structure, does not override an Altss classification rule, and does not certify that the external body endorses the Altss definition.

Where this standard differs from common practice. Many glossaries assign one category per term. This standard requires one primary facet plus explicit secondary facets, separates navigation hubs from classification, and treats roles (limited partner, general partner in its legal sense) as positions rather than organisation types.

13. Version and change log

• Version 1.0 (2026-10-01). First publication. Defines the 33-facet scheme, the primary-facet rule, the separation of facets from navigation domains, the concept-ID format and permanence rules, canonical-concept, alias and anchor rules, classification rules 6.1 to 6.13, labelling of Altss-defined concepts, and the crosswalk policy.
• Version 1.1 (2026-10-01). Independent review. Clarified that navigation domains do not create hub pages automatically (5.3); recorded the secondary STR facet in worked example 1; reworded worked example 4 as a definition rather than a description of Altss practice; noted the NACE Rev. 2.1 derogations; repaired character-encoding damage in the facet table.

Change control. A change that alters the meaning of a facet, adds or removes a facet, or changes a rule in section 5 or 6 is a major change and increments the major version. A clarification or new example is a minor change. Concept reclassifications are recorded in each concept's own history and do not change this standard's version. Facet codes, once published, are not reassigned to a different meaning.

Concepts used

• Industry Classification Systems
• Canonical Entity
• Private Capital (Private Markets)
• Fund Structure
• General Partner
• Management Company
• Limited Partner
• Family Office
• Data Normalization
• Disambiguation

Sources

1. 17 CFR 275.202(a)(11)(G)-1 - Family offices. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (CFR text via eCFR; LII mirror), eCFR current as of 2026-09-29; unchanged since adoption (2011). Status: in force (checked 2026-10-01). 17 CFR 275.202(a)(11)(G)-1
2. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) - 2022 NAICS. U.S. Census Bureau (with Statistics Canada and INEGI), U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 NAICS (current); 2027 revision proposed - Federal Register notice 13 July 2026. Status: Current; 2027 update in progress (checked 2026-10-01). 2022 NAICS; 2027 revision notice
3. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code List. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of Corporation Finance, SEC, Web list accessed 2026-10-01. Status: Current (legacy SIC still used in EDGAR) (checked 2026-10-01). SIC code list page
4. Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 establishing the statistical classification of economic activities NACE Revision 2. European Parliament and Council, Official Journal of the EU, L 393, 30.12.2006, Adopted 20 December 2006. Status: In force; Annex replaced by NACE Rev. 2.1 (checked 2026-10-01). Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006
5. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/137 amending Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 (NACE Rev. 2.1). European Commission, Official Journal of the EU, L 19, 20.1.2023, Adopted 10 October 2022; applies to data transmissions for reference periods from 1 January 2025 (with domain-specific derogations). Status: In force (checked 2026-10-01). Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/137
6. International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC), Revision 5. United Nations Statistics Division, United Nations, Structure endorsed by UN Statistical Commission March 2023 (54th session); introduction and explanatory notes March 2024 (55th session). Status: Current (Rev. 4 of 2008 still in wide use during transition) (checked 2026-10-01). ISIC Rev. 5 page
7. Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS). MSCI and S&P Dow Jones Indices, MSCI, Developed 1999; structure revised March 2023 (11 sectors, 25 industry groups, 74 industries, 163 sub-industries). Status: Current; proprietary and licensed (checked 2026-10-01). GICS overview and terms of use
8. ILPA Principles 3.0: Fostering Transparency, Governance and Alignment of Interests for General and Limited Partners. Institutional Limited Partners Association, ILPA, Third edition, released 27 June 2019. Status: Current edition (no 4.0 found as of 2026-10-01) (checked 2026-10-01). ILPA Principles 3.0 (June 2019), whole document: guiding principles of alignment of interest, governance and transparency
9. ILPA Reporting Template (v. 2.0). Institutional Limited Partners Association, ILPA, v2.0 released 21 January 2025 under the Quarterly Reporting Standards Initiative (QRSI). Status: Current; ILPA recommends implementation from Q1 2026 (checked 2026-10-01). ILPA Reporting Template v2.0 (21 January 2025) and suggested guidance
10. International Private Equity and Venture Capital Valuation Guidelines (2025 edition). IPEV Board, IPEV, Published 11 December 2025; in effect for quarterly reporting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2026; early adoption encouraged. Status: Current; supersedes the December 2022 edition (checked 2026-10-01). IPEV Valuation Guidelines, December 2025 edition, definitions (Fair Value)
11. Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS) for Firms 2020. CFA Institute, 2020 edition; effective 1 January 2020; required for GIPS Reports with periods ending on or after 31 December 2020. Status: Current (checked 2026-10-01). GIPS Standards for Firms 2020, provision 1.A.35 and Glossary