GGI / ERI™
GGI converts fragmented operational evidence into institutionally defensible structure — before diligence or audit pressure forces reconciliation.
Most PE-backed companies can operate for years with fragmented truth across payroll systems, entity structures, workforce classification, vendor ecosystems, and tax posture. Under normal conditions, that fragmentation stays quiet. Under diligence, underwriting, audit, or exit scrutiny, it becomes economically material — fast.
Every undocumented operational gap that surfaces in diligence is a negotiating lever. Buyers don't price probable exposure — they price worst-case, then multiply.
A 60-day delay in a competitive process costs more than the underlying liability. When momentum stops, competitive tension disappears and negotiating position deteriorates daily.
Contractor misclassification and payroll fragmentation don't stay in the HR workstream. They cascade into tax, IP, PE risk, wage liability, and successor liability simultaneously.
Operational conditions that exist in practice but can't be institutionally proven are priced as liabilities by buyers, underwriters, and auditors — regardless of what the contracts say.
When documentation is assembled under transaction pressure rather than maintained continuously, it pulls leadership off execution at the moment execution matters most — compounding every pressure above it.
The question buyers eventually ask: doesn't something already solve this? The honest answer is no — and the reason is structural, not a gap in effort.
Record and process transactions within their own scope. They do not reconcile operational truth across systems, score governance coherence, or produce institutionally defensible documentation.
What they do well: transaction processing, workflow management, data storage.
Disciplines financial reporting into institutionally defensible structure — but only at a point in time, and only for the financial layer. The operating layer beneath it remains unscored and unstructured.
What it does well: financial statement defensibility, earnings normalization, point-in-time snapshot.
QoE disciplines financial reporting. ERI™ disciplines the operating layer beneath it.
GGI is continuous operational diligence infrastructure. It works in three steps — each building on the last, each running across the ownership lifecycle rather than assembling under transaction pressure.
Operational contradictions become visible before diligence or audit pressure finds them.
Fragmented workforce, payroll, vendor, and governance records often remain invisible until diligence, underwriting, or exit pressure forces reconciliation. Surface finds them first.
Institutional exposure becomes measurable before it becomes economic leverage.
GGI evaluates transaction readiness across fragmented systems to identify where inconsistency, reconstruction risk, and governance gaps create valuation pressure — continuously, not at exit.
Operational gaps are closed before scrutiny forces reactive reconstruction.
GGI helps organizations resolve the contradictions that delay transactions, erode buyer confidence, and compress valuation under scrutiny — so the posture is already defensible when it needs to be.
The difference between a company that controls the diligence conversation and one that reacts to it is almost always timing. Operational fragmentation doesn't change between a snapshot and a continuous record. The economic consequence does.
Gaps are discovered during diligence. Buyers define the exposure. Sellers bear the burden of proof. Timeline slips. Leverage shifts.
Operational posture scored and documented across the ownership lifecycle. No reconstruction. No discovery under pressure. The record exists before anyone asks for it.
A current ERI™ score means diligence begins with a pre-existing operational record. The company controls the narrative, the timeline, and the terms.
The Exit Readiness Index is the Score layer of GGI's operational diligence system. It produces a single composite number — the institutional equivalent of a QoE, focused on the operating layer beneath the financials. It tracks continuously across core governance domains and produces a single composite number.
Three pillars. Ten domains. One composite score. Continuously updated — not assembled at exit.
ERI™ scores surface operational fragmentation across your portfolio continuously — so deteriorating companies are flagged before they become diligence problems, not after.
Every finance and operations leader has lived it: external scrutiny arrives and the team spends weeks reconstructing documentation that should have been continuous. ERI™ eliminates that moment.
Portfolio companies with a current ERI™ score arrive at diligence with documented transaction readiness. That changes the diligence conversation and the valuation conversation.
Underwriting ecosystems already price the downstream consequences of documentation asymmetry. ERI™ surfaces and scores that gap upstream — before it arrives as a reconstruction under transaction pressure.
Continuous ERI™ scoring and governance monitoring across all active portfolio companies — aligned to the investment thesis and GP reporting cadence. Single point of accountability across every market.
Embedded senior operational leadership with full execution accountability — from entity setup through exit-ready operations. Surface → Score → Resolve deployed continuously from day one through exit.
Defined-scope delivery for specific needs — ERI™ baseline assessments, exposure scans, diligence preparation, classification archaeology, and pre-transaction operational readiness packages.
GGI works with a select number of PE and VC firms at a time. If operational fragmentation is on your radar — before the next transaction, before the next audit, before scrutiny forces the conversation — let's talk.
Schedule a Conversation →