The portfolio company's numbers must survive the IC meeting.
PE-backed companies live under a reporting standard their systems were never built for. Corelynx rebuilds the revenue and operating systems underneath the board pack — fast enough for a hold period, measured enough for an exit narrative.
Three things a hold period demands: make the numbers defensible (metric definitions, CRM data governance, board-grade reporting produced on demand), remove the operational drag (system consolidation, workflow automation, AI where evidence supports it), and build the exit-ready artifact trail (documented architecture, clean data, measurable improvement baselines). Corelynx delivers these as fixed-fee diagnostics and milestone-billed builds with a 90-day outcome guarantee.
If three of these are true, the ceiling is structural.
- Board pack assembly takes the CFO's team a week of manual reconstruction, every month
- Sales-reported pipeline and finance-reported pipeline disagree — in front of the operating partner
- The 100-day plan's technology line items are still open at day 300
- Diligence flagged 'systems risk' at entry and nothing has structurally changed since
- Add-on integrations stalled at 'shared Slack channel' depth — two CRMs, two ERPs, one company on paper
Why portfolio companies hit this wall
The pattern is structural, not managerial. Most acquired companies ran founder-era systems tuned for a smaller business and a gentler reporting standard; the deal thesis then loads exit-grade expectations onto entry-grade infrastructure. McKinsey's transformation research — roughly 70% of programs falling short — lands hardest here, because hold periods punish slow programs twice: once in EBITDA, once in multiple.
The compounding error is sequencing. Portfolio teams are routinely sold replatforming projects when the diligence finding was actually a governance gap — undefined metrics, unowned data, unenforced process. Per the McKinsey–Oxford research, large IT projects average 45% over budget and deliver 56% less value than projected; inside a 4–6 year hold, that variance is not a risk, it is the whole return on the initiative.
Sequenced, priced, gated.
Portfolio-grade diagnostic
The same evidence discipline as our sample report, tuned to PE cadence: system and data audit, reporting-trust score, 100-day-plan reconciliation, and a sequenced roadmap with fixed prices the operating partner can take to the IC.
Reporting spine first
Metric definitions with finance signoff, CRM data governance, and a board pack produced on demand — the highest-leverage fix per dollar in the entire hold, because every later decision runs through it.
Consolidate & automate
Add-on system integration, workflow automation, and AI pilots only where baselines justify them — each milestone gated, each improvement measured against day-0.
The artifact trail
Documented architecture, data-quality evidence, and baseline-vs-actual improvement records — turning 'we fixed operations' from a management claim into a diligence exhibit.
The composite case, end to end.
Situation (composite): a $60M B2B services platform, 18 months post-close, two add-ons semi-integrated. Board reporting consumed 40+ analyst-hours per month; forecast variance across the three entities exceeded ±30%; the sponsor's ops team rated systems the #1 value-creation blocker.
Intervention: a two-week diagnostic ($15K) found the expected pattern — three CRMs, five pipeline definitions, zero owners. We rebuilt the reporting spine first (one canonical metrics layer across entities, 9 weeks), then consolidated onto a single governed CRM with phased migration (14 weeks), then automated the recurring board pack.
Outcome categories observed (composite, illustrative): board pack assembly from ~40 hours to under 4; consolidated forecast variance inside ±10% within two quarters; the systems narrative moved from a diligence risk to an exit exhibit. Total program: under $140K — priced against a single turn of EBITDA multiple, a rounding error.
Composite of real engagements; details anonymized and merged, figures illustrative of typical findings.
Five moves you can make without hiring anyone.
- Reconcile the 100-day plan against reality quarterly — open technology items past day 180 are a governance smell, not a vendor delay
- Fix definitions before systems: five pipeline definitions across three entities cannot be consolidated by software
- Demand baseline tables in every technology proposal; 'improvement' without a day-0 number is unfalsifiable
- Price initiatives against the multiple, not the P&L — a $140K reporting spine that defends the EBITDA story is the cheapest line in the deal model
- Start the artifact trail at entry, not at exit-minus-6-months
On the record.
Both models work. Sponsors typically commission the diagnostic (portable across the portfolio); the portfolio company owns the build. Either way, reporting runs to whoever signs — with one baseline table both sides see.
Yes — the diagnostic is deliberately repeatable, which is the point: one methodology, comparable scores across the portfolio, and a defensible basis for where value-creation capital goes first.
Diagnostics start weekly; a hold period does not wait for a consulting bench. Current build capacity is published on our Proof Center.
Talk this through with a practitioner.
The first conversation is about context and fit — nothing more.
Book a Strategy Session →