A co-investment brief that respects the reader

The honest centre of the brief: expected returns are modest in the base case, with asymmetric upside if the thesis plays out. It also named who should not invest.

The situation

A co-investment window in an early-stage quantum-computing company, with the round closing imminently. The brief was written to force clear thinking under that pressure.

The work

An independent brief for prospective co-investors, built to be argued with. What the company actually does, in plain language. The deal terms as they are, not as the sponsor deck frames them. The technology-timeline context the thesis depends on. A valuation assessment that calls the price what it is: aggressive relative to the business today, a venture-style bet on what it becomes. Scenario analysis run net of deal fees, because gross scenarios flatter everyone and mislead the one person who matters. An explicit bull case and an explicit bear case, given equal floor time. And a who-should-consider-this section that reads people out of the deal as readily as into it: the required risk appetite, the time horizon, and the conviction the position actually demands.

The discipline

The base case was written down plainly, so the co-investors who joined did so with their eyes open and sized the position accordingly.

What this shows

The brief named the bear case and the wrong buyer profile. That costs nothing when the thesis is real, and it makes the decision easy to own afterwards.

One of a set of engagement and systems case studies. If a problem like this is on your desk, start with a conversation.