Altss Private Markets Research Citation Standard

1. Purpose

This standard sets the rules for citing sources in Altss's private-markets reference and research content: glossary entries, taxonomy hubs, frameworks, methodologies and research notes. It exists so that a reader can check every statement that needs checking, find the document behind it, and see how current it is.

Reference content written without sources, from other reference content, or from the publisher's own earlier pages produces circular definitions and numbers with no traceable source. The rules here require each general claim to rest on the most authoritative source that actually supports it, stated in a fixed form, and forbid the shortcuts that make citations unverifiable.

2. Scope

In scope

• General claims in Altss reference and research content: definitions, legal and regulatory statements, requirements of industry standards, attributions of methods to their authors, statistics, and descriptions of market practice.
• The source tiers, the claim format, recency markers, quotation and the use of AI tools in drafting and citation.

Out of scope

• Claims about specific organisations, funds, people or transactions. Their evidence is governed by the Evidence & Provenance Standard and the Source Reliability & Confidence Methodology.
• Descriptions of Altss's own products and services. These are not research claims and are not supported by citation under this standard.
• Bibliographic style. The standard specifies the elements a citation must contain, not a house style such as APA or Chicago.

3. Definitions

• General claim. A statement about private markets that is not about a single named entity: what a term means, what a rule requires, how a metric is calculated, how common a practice is.
• Citation. A reference that identifies a source document precisely enough for a reader to retrieve it, with a pinpoint.
• Pinpoint. The location in the source that supports the claim: section, paragraph, rule number, page, table.
• Resolvable citation. A citation whose identifier retrieves the cited document, and whose document supports the claim at the pinpoint.
• Tier. The class of a source for general claims (section 4).
• Originating source. The source that first produced the information (the rule-maker, the study's authors, the body that ran the survey). The term has the same meaning as in the Evidence & Provenance Standard. See primary source and evidence chain.
• Recency marker. Words that tie a claim to a date or edition: "as of", "in the [year] edition", "effective from".
• Self-citation. Citing a page published by Altss, or derived from Altss content, as evidence.
• Single-source claim / multi-source claim. A claim supported by one originating source, or by more than one independent originating source (independence as tested in the Evidence & Provenance Standard, 6.8).
• Checked citation. A citation that a person has opened and confirmed at the pinpoint (5.12, 5.13). This standard says "checked" and "unchecked" of citations. The evidence-origin values and validation statuses (UNVERIFIED, CORROBORATED, RESEARCH_VALIDATED, CONFLICTING) of the Evidence & Provenance Standard apply to claims about specific entities and are not assigned to general claims.

4. Inputs and source types

4.1 Tiers for general claims.

A tier is assigned to a source for the kind of claim it supports. A T1 body's survey or commentary is not a rule; when the claim is "the rule requires X", the citation is to the rule text. A T3 firm's definition of its own index is citable for that definition and nothing more. Tiers rank sources for general claims. They are not the authority classes or reliability grades of the Source Reliability & Confidence Methodology, and not evidence-origin values or validation statuses. All of those apply to claims about specific entities; the two scales are not interchangeable.

4.2 Never cited as evidence for a general claim.

• Altss's own pages, and any page whose content derives from them. Altss reference pages are not evidence for the claims they make; citing them back is circular.
• Competitors and commercial publishers in the private-markets data business, for general definitions, practices or market facts. Their pages may be read to discover topics; their text is never copied or closely paraphrased.
• Generic web content written for search ranking, unattributed explainers, and AI-generated summaries.
• Encyclopedias and other tertiary references, which may be used to orient research but are replaced by the source they summarise.

4.3 Altss-defined concepts. For a concept that Altss defines, the definition is cited to the Altss methodology or standard that defines it, and the text says it is an Altss definition. This is a citation of Altss's own definition, as a T3 firm cites its own index; it is never evidence for a general claim about the market.

5. Method

5.1 What needs a citation. Always: a legal or regulatory definition, threshold, date or requirement; a requirement of an industry standard; the attribution of a method or formula to its authors; any statistic; any dated fact. A statement of established definition that every T1 and T2 source states the same way may stand without a citation. The test is whether a specialist reader would ask "according to whom?". If so, cite.

5.2 Cite the best source that supports the claim. Use the highest available tier that actually contains the support, and the primary text over a summary of it: the rule rather than a law-firm memo about the rule, the standard rather than a press release about the standard, the original paper rather than a textbook account of it.

5.3 Cite what you read. A citation names a document the writer examined and checked at the pinpoint. A source known only through another source is cited as "as reported in" the source that was read, or not cited at all.

5.4 The claim format. Every quantitative claim carries five elements:

1. Claim: what is asserted, about which population;
2. Number: the value, with its precision as stated in the source;
3. Unit: currency, percentage, multiple, count; for money, the currency and whether nominal or real; for rates, the period;
4. As-of date: the date or period the number describes, or the edition of the source;
5. Source: the cited document with its tier and pinpoint.

A number without a unit or a date is not published. A proportion states its denominator. A claim about a specific entity is cited in the order set by the Evidence & Provenance Standard (its Example 6), which adds derivation status, validation status, evidence origin and capture date.

5.5 Single-source claims. A claim supported by one originating source is attributed in the text ("According to [source]…"), and is stated for the population and period that source covers, not generalised beyond it. One study is never described as "studies".

5.6 Multi-source claims. Where several independent originating sources support a claim, each is cited. Originating sources are counted under the independence test of the Evidence & Provenance Standard (6.8), which the Source Reliability & Confidence Methodology also applies: two articles quoting one press release, or two reports based on one survey, are one source. Where independent sources disagree, the text gives each figure with its source, method and date, or the range across them. Figures from different studies are not averaged into a new number unless the method is stated and the result is labelled as derived.

5.7 Recency markers. Every dated claim carries a recency marker: "as of [date]", "in the [edition] edition", "effective [date]", "at the time of writing ([date])". Legal and regulatory statements give the jurisdiction, the governing provision, the effective date and the current status, and flag any recent change: a rule vacated, a threshold adjusted, a compliance date moved, a new edition of a standard with a transition date.

5.8 Law vs practice. The legal definition and market practice are stated separately. Practice that no source codifies may be described without a citation when it is phrased as practice ("commonly", "typically") and its variation is explained. It is never phrased as a requirement.

5.9 Conventions are not universal. Where a calculation or term has several accepted conventions (for example IRR with or without NAV as a terminal value, different public market equivalent methods, whole-fund and deal-by-deal waterfalls), the text names the convention it uses and states that others exist. One convention is never presented as the definition.

5.10 No unsourced market statistics. Statements about market size, growth, fundraising totals, allocation trends or investor behaviour are published only with a dated source that supports them. Without one, the claim is rewritten without a number or removed.

5.11 Quotation and reuse. Quotations are short, exact and attributed. Sources are summarised in the writer's own words and structure, never closely paraphrased. Text of standards and licensed classifications is referenced, not reproduced.

5.12 Every citation resolves. Before publication and at each review, each citation is checked: the identifier (URL, DOI, rule number, document title with publisher and date) retrieves the document, and the document supports the claim at the pinpoint. For documents at unstable addresses, an archived copy is recorded with its capture date. A citation that stops resolving is repaired, or the claim is removed, or it is marked as resting on an unchecked citation until the repair is made.

5.13 AI-assisted drafting. AI tools may help to find candidate sources, summarise documents the writer then reads, draft text and check consistency. The following rules apply without exception:

1. No citation is published that a person has not opened and checked at the pinpoint.
2. No citation, URL, quotation, statistic, legal threshold, date or case may be invented. A reference proposed by an AI tool is treated as unchecked until it is found and read at the pinpoint.
3. AI output is never a source. A claim supported only by AI output is unsupported.
4. Text drafted with AI assistance passes the same review as any other text, including this standard's checks on every claim.
5. Where a claim cannot be supported by a checked citation, it is removed. It is not published with a placeholder citation.

5.14 Label Altss-defined concepts. A concept Altss defines is described as such in the first sentence where it is introduced and is never presented as an industry standard.

6. Classification rules

Minimum source by claim type:

7. Conflict handling

• Rule vs commentary. Where commentary and the rule text differ, the rule text governs and is cited.
• Jurisdictions differ. Each jurisdiction's rule is stated with its source. No single "global" definition is constructed from them.
• Editions differ. The current edition is cited, with its effective date; where a transition period applies, both editions are named and the transition is stated.
• Empirical findings differ. Each finding is given with its sample, period and method. The text does not choose a winner unless a T2 source explains the difference.
• A source corrects itself. The corrected version is cited and the correction date recorded.

8. Confidence and limitations

• A citation shows that a source supports a claim. It does not show that the source is right.
• T1 sources state rules authoritatively but can be superseded; T2 findings depend on their samples and periods; T3 definitions are their owners' own.
• A resolvable link today may not resolve tomorrow. Archived copies and stable identifiers reduce, but do not remove, that risk.
• Absence of a citation for a statement of established definition means the statement was judged uncontroversial under 5.1. It is not a claim that no source exists.

9. Temporal rules

• Each citation records the date it was last checked.
• Each page records the date it was last reviewed. That date says the page was reviewed against its sources on that date. It does not say any market or entity fact was observed then. It is not an "entity verified" date either: that date belongs to a single claim about an entity, and is the date a review confirmed that claim (RESEARCH_VALIDATED, Evidence & Provenance Standard 6.7).
• When a cited rule or standard changes, every page citing it is due for review. Until reviewed, the page's statements carry the recency markers they were written with, so a reader can see what they described.
• Statistics are never "updated" by changing the number alone: the source, date and population change with it.

10. Edge cases

• Paywalled primary sources. If the primary text cannot be read, a reliable secondary report of it is cited as "as reported in", and the claim is attributed to that report.
• Working papers and preprints. Citable as T2 when issued by a recognised research centre, labelled as working papers, and replaced by the published version when it appears.
• Proposed rules. A proposed rule is labelled as proposed, with its date and status. It is never described as law.
• Vacated or withdrawn rules. Stated as vacated or withdrawn with the date and the decision that did it.
• Industry-association surveys. Citable as T2 institutional research with sample size, respondent type and date. They describe their respondents, not the whole market.
• Translations. The original is cited; a translation used for reading is noted.
• Standard-setter press releases. Used to find the standard; the standard is cited.
• Conversations and AI chat transcripts. Not citable.

11. Worked examples

Example 1: an unsupported statistic. A draft says "most LPs now require ESG reporting from their managers". The writer finds no dated source that supports "most" for a defined population. Under 5.10 the sentence is rewritten without a quantity ("Some LPs require ESG reporting from their managers, for example through side letters or due diligence questionnaires"), or a dated T2 survey is cited with its sample: "In [survey], conducted in [period] among [number] [respondent type], [x]% reported…".

Example 2: a rule, stated in claim format. A sentence on what a US rule requires names the jurisdiction (the United States), the instrument and the provision, and cites the rule text at paragraph level: for the SEC Marketing Rule's provision on gross and net performance, [T1: 17 CFR 275.206(4)-1(d)(1)], not a law-firm memo about it or the SEC's press release. It states which advisers the rule applies to, as the rule text defines them, and the page records the rule's compliance date and current status. The substance of the rule is set out on the marketing rule entry.

Example 3: one survey, several articles. Three articles report the same allocation figure, each citing one consultant's survey. The survey is the originating source. It is cited directly, once, with its sample and date. The articles are not cited.

Example 4: a self-citation trap. A framework draft supports a definition by linking to an Altss glossary page. That is circular under 4.2. The writer traces the glossary page's own source (for example the ILPA Principles) and cites that, or removes the claim if no source is found. A link to the glossary page may remain as navigation, but it is not a citation.

Example 5: an AI-proposed reference. An AI tool suggests a paper with a plausible title, journal and year to support a claim about secondary pricing. The writer searches for it and finds no such paper. Under 5.13 the reference is discarded and the claim is either supported by a checked source or removed. The discarded reference is not mentioned in the published text.

Example 6: a convention. A page states a fund's interim IRR. Under 5.9 it says that the figure treats NAV as a terminal cash flow, which is the common convention for interim IRR, and links to the IRR entry, which explains the alternatives.

12. External references

• Persistent identifiers. Where a source has a DOI, the DOI is the preferred identifier, because it is designed to resolve independently of the publisher's current web address.
• Dates. Dates in citations are written in ISO 8601 form.
• Provenance alignment. The cite-what-you-read and trace-to-the-originating-source rules mirror those for entity evidence in the Evidence & Provenance Standard, which is aligned with W3C PROV-O. That standard's evidence-origin, derivation and validation dimensions are Altss methodology for claims about specific entities; general claims under this standard are ranked by tier instead.
• Where this standard differs from common practice. It forbids three shortcuts found in reference content: definitions without sources, citations of the publisher's own pages, and figures without dates. It excludes the publisher's own pages and commercial competitors as evidence for general claims, and requires a unit and an as-of date on every number.

13. Version and change log

• Version 1.2 (2026-10-01). Independent review. Worked example 2 no longer states the Marketing Rule's requirement (the draft applied it to any investment adviser; the rule text binds advisers registered or required to be registered with the SEC); it now shows the citation form and links to the concept that carries the rule. Tiers are distinguished from the authority classes of the Source Reliability & Confidence Methodology. Section 5.4 points claims about specific entities to the citation order of the Evidence & Provenance Standard. Unsupported generalisations about other reference publishers removed.
• Version 1.1 (2026-10-01). Terminology aligned with the Evidence & Provenance Standard version 1.1: "origin" is now "originating source"; citations are described as checked or unchecked, so that they are not read as entity validation statuses; the page review date is distinguished from the "entity verified" date; tiers are distinguished from evidence-origin values, reliability grades and validation statuses. No change to the tiers, the excluded sources or the AI-assisted drafting rules.
• Version 1.0 (2026-10-01). First publication. Establishes the T1/T2/T3 tiers for general claims, the excluded sources, the five-element claim format, single- and multi-source rules, recency markers, the law-versus-practice and convention rules, quotation limits, citation resolution and AI-assisted drafting rules.

Change control. Changes to the tiers, the excluded sources or the AI-assisted drafting rules are major changes. New examples and clarifications are minor changes.

Concepts used

• Primary Source
• Secondary Source
• Source Attribution (Claim-Level Provenance)
• Source Authority
• Evidence Chain
• Regulatory Filing
• Evidence Dates
• Human-in-the-Loop Validation

Sources

1. 17 CFR 275.206(4)-1 - Investment adviser marketing (Marketing Rule). U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (CFR text via eCFR; LII mirror), eCFR current as of 2026-09-29; last amended 2022-04-15 (later versions technical). Status: in force (checked 2026-10-01). 275.206(4)-1(d)(1)
2. 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). Whole document (third edition, 27 June 2019)
3. PROV-O: The PROV Ontology. Timothy Lebo; Satya Sahoo; Deborah McGuinness (eds.), W3C, W3C Recommendation, 30 April 2013. Status: Current Recommendation (checked 2026-10-01). Section 3.1 (starting point terms)