Start with the decision, not the dashboard
Evaluate an investor rights intelligence platform by asking whether it connects source-defined rights and economics to current ownership, financing history, company performance and the decision being prepared. A useful test starts with a named investor, entity, security and proposed event. Ask the demonstrator to explain what the records establish, which assumptions remain and who must review them.
Choose a bounded financing scenario rather than a tour of every available screen. Provide a small agreement family and ask for the position as of a particular date. Keep the original document labels visible so your team can follow the answer back to the material it supplied.
Identify the holder and economic position
Ask how the relevant investor and legal entity are distinguished from related funds or similarly named holders. Which security and financing round does each record concern? Request the capitalization or ownership evidence available in the sources, its date and any assumptions used to connect it with later transactions.
For participation and pro rata questions, ask which eligibility conditions, thresholds and exclusions apply to that holder. For preferences, seniority and economics, ask the demonstrator to separate an evidenced term from an assumed input. A polished calculation is not a substitute for a visible basis.
Pressure-test a changed right
Illustrative example: a fund is preparing for a new financing. An amendment changes one investor’s participation right, but a referenced side letter is missing. Ask the platform to show the original provision, amendment, affected holder and effective date together.
What can be concluded without the side letter? Which proposed participation decision depends on it? Request a clearly recorded evidence gap, rather than treating the absence as confirmation that no exception exists. Repeat the question for a different security to test whether the amendment’s scope is preserved.
Follow notices, approvals and change history
Ask which notices, consents and approvals are relevant to the proposed event, where they are defined and who owns the next review. Test an amendment, waiver and limited exception separately. Can a reviewer distinguish a changed provision from terms that remain in force?
Request source locations for each conclusion and a list of documents still needed. Have an investment colleague and an operations colleague explain the same answer from the evidence. Differences between their interpretations are useful evaluation findings to resolve before expanding the scope.
Add performance context without predicting outcomes
Ask how portfolio-company KPIs are connected to the company, period, ownership and financing context. Performance is a signal for investigation, not a prediction of an outcome or proof that a right can be exercised. Confirm who may see the underlying records and who owns corrections when a mapping or source changes.
Finish by recording the test question, evidence received, unresolved items and accountable reviewer. PostSig IRI connects portfolio-company context with ownership, rights, economics and source records; LineageAI provides its shared foundation for entities, relationships, dates and evidence. Use the checklist to prepare your own source-led evaluation.