Track Record Verification

Track record verification is the allocator process of validating performance claims with underlying evidence—not headline IRR tables. Allocators verify what drove outcomes, how losses were handled, and how valuation decisions were governed. The goal is to determine whether results are real, attributable, and repeatable.

This is where many narratives fail: performance may be concentrated in one outlier, driven by leverage, inflated by marks, or not attributable to the current team.

How allocators define track record verification risk drivers

Allocators verify:

• Deal-level cashflows: timing and accuracy of contributions/distributions
• Realized vs unrealized mix: reliance on marks vs exits
• Attribution: what truly drove winners and losers
• Valuation governance: oversight, independence, challenge process
• Loss recognition: write-down timing and triage discipline
• Fee/expense treatment: consistency of calculation methods
• Team attribution: who made decisions, not “team track” marketing
• Survivorship bias: whether losers are hidden or minimized

Allocator framing:
“Do the numbers survive scrutiny—and does the pattern indicate repeatable decision-making?”

Where verification matters most

• emerging managers and spinouts
• high-unrealized strategies (VC/growth/real assets)
• multi-vehicle platforms with allocation complexity
• funds raised on short windows of strong markets

How verification changes outcomes

Strong verification:

• increases IC confidence and reduces unknowns
• accelerates approvals and reduces protective term demands
• improves long-term trust and re-up likelihood

Weak verification:

• triggers repeated data requests and delays
• increases skepticism around valuation integrity
• often results in a quiet pass even if narrative is strong

How allocators evaluate verification readiness

Conviction increases when managers can:

• reconcile data across sources cleanly
• explain worst deals and what changed
• show consistent calculation methodology over time
• demonstrate governance around marks and write-downs

What slows allocator decision-making

• inability to produce deal-level cashflows
• inconsistent calculations across documents
• heavy reliance on marks with weak oversight
• unclear attribution to current team

Common misconceptions

• “IRR tells the story” → timing and composition matter.
• “Unrealized is fine” → only with strong valuation governance.
• “One winner proves edge” → edge is a pattern, not a single outlier.

Key allocator questions during diligence

• Can you provide deal-level cashflows and reconcile them?
• What percent of returns is unrealized, and how are marks governed?
• What were the worst deals and what changed afterward?
• How concentrated are outcomes in the top positions?
• Who on the team owned the key decisions?