Two platforms
Which side of the table are you on?
Both platforms run on the same research base and share a vocabulary, so work done in one is legible in the other. They are sold separately and each opens with a free tier.
Blueprint
Is the room ready for an institutional allocator? Five modules in a deliberate order.
| Evaluator Lens | What the target allocator is actually looking for |
| Consistency Audit | The problems an allocator will find, found first |
| Firm Narrative | The story, excavated and translated |
| Data Room | Seventy-four documents across fourteen folders |
| LP Intelligence | Research on each allocator, and drafted answers in diligence |
Architecture
How is the firm built? Three engines across fund and firm level, plus a scenario engine.
| Portfolio Efficiency | Is deployment configured for the fund's lifecycle stage |
| Firm Design Congruence | Do the structural choices fit together |
| Cross-Fund Concentration | Is capital distributed so diversification survives |
| Scenario Engine | The follow-on decision, structured |
| Firm Overview | Every fund in the firm, in one view |
The lifecycle
Blueprint takes a manager to the close. Architecture takes it from there.
A manager who raises with Blueprint arrives at Architecture with the structure already documented, which means the first firm reading is not a data-gathering exercise. That handoff is why both products sit under one roof.
Illustrative reading for a first-time manager, ten documents uploaded at intake.
At intake34% After build96%Coverage measures how much of a standard institutional diligence request the room can already answer without a follow-up email.
Illustrative screen · Colibrí Blueprint