# The maturity rubric

Ten functions, five levels each. It answers "what stage is this company really at" with something comparable across a portfolio, and it is the routing table that sends a company to the right specialist.

The functions are the ten sections of [`stack/`](../stack/INDEX.md). They are not a new taxonomy — reusing them is what makes a score mean the same thing in every company's folder.

![Five levels from asserted to managed, with the jump from written to evidenced highlighted, and the list of things a level is not.](../web/infographics/what-stage-are-they-really-at.webp)

---

## What a level is, and is not

A level describes **what is observably true about how the company runs a function.** It is not a judgement of the founder, and it is deliberately independent of four things people score by accident:

**Money raised.** A funded company with no unit economics is a level 1 on money that can afford to stay there longer.
**Revenue.** Revenue proves someone paid. It does not prove the function is repeatable, and a company can be at level 4 on GTM with no revenue yet or at level 1 with plenty.
**Headcount.** Twelve people running an undocumented process is a level 2, with more people in it.
**How impressive the founder is in a room.** The most common scoring error, and the reason to score from the record rather than from the last conversation.

A low score is not a criticism. Most early companies are at 1 or 2 on most functions, and a portfolio where everyone scores 4 means the rubric is being used to flatter rather than to route.

## The ladder

The same five steps everywhere. Each function's table below is this ladder made concrete.

| | | What has changed |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **1** | **Asserted** | It exists as an answer the founder gives. Nothing is written, and the answer moves between tellings. |
| **2** | **Written** | Written down in one place. Still largely a plan, an estimate or an intention. |
| **3** | **Evidenced** | Backed by records that exist independently of the founder's memory — invoices, transcripts, tracked numbers, signed documents. |
| **4** | **Repeatable** | It has worked more than once, on purpose, and someone other than the founder could run it from what is written. |
| **5** | **Managed** | Measured against a target, reviewed on a rhythm, and deliberately improved. A named person owns it. |

The jump that matters most is **2 to 3**, and it is the one a programme can actually cause. It is the difference between a founder telling you their cost per unit and a founder showing you the invoice it came from.

---

## 01 · Company — entity, ownership, obligations

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | The founder can name the shareholders. Nothing exists beyond incorporation. |
| 2 | The cap table is written down. Equity and commission promises to advisors and contributors are verbal. |
| 3 | The written cap table matches the filed documents. Every equity promise has a signed one-page scope. |
| 4 | Compliance obligations are listed with renewal dates, and someone acts on them without being chased. |
| 5 | Cap table, filings and agreements survive a diligence request without a scramble. |

## 02 · Customer — who they are, and what evidence exists

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | The customer is a segment: "small businesses", "young professionals". |
| 2 | An ICP and a job-to-be-done are written down, from the founder's own belief. |
| 3 | Ten or more real conversations are recorded, and the ICP has changed because of them. |
| 4 | The same objections recur predictably and each has a written answer. New interviews stop producing surprises. |
| 5 | Customer evidence is gathered continuously and visibly changes product and GTM decisions. |

## 03 · Market — sizing and competition

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | A top-down market number from a report, quoted without its assumptions. |
| 2 | Bottom-up sizing is written down with assumptions named. Three or four competitors are listed. |
| 3 | The sizing traces to countable things. The grid includes the incumbent doing it badly and the adjacent platform that could absorb them. |
| 4 | They know who they lose to and why, from deals they actually lost. |
| 5 | Competitive position is tracked, and a competitor's price change reaches the stack in days rather than quarters. |

## 04 · Product — what exists versus what is a slide

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | The product is described in the future tense. |
| 2 | A roadmap is written down. What exists and what is promised are not cleanly separated. |
| 3 | Something works that a real customer has used, and the written roadmap separates it from what is next. |
| 4 | They ship on a cadence. Where a consequential recommendation reaches a user, a qualified human validates it first. |
| 5 | The roadmap is driven by customer evidence rather than founder preference, and reprioritised on a rhythm. |

## 05 · GTM — channels and pipeline

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | "Social media and word of mouth." The prospect list has five names on it. |
| 2 | Channels are named and a list exists. Mostly untested. |
| 3 | One channel has been worked properly — a hundred prospects, a recorded cadence, a result either way. |
| 4 | One channel produces customers predictably enough to plan on, and cost per acquisition is measured rather than estimated. |
| 5 | Spend is step-tested against delivery capacity, and the channel mix changes on evidence. |

## 06 · Operations — delivery and capacity

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | The founder does it, and how it gets done lives in their head. |
| 2 | The process is written down end to end. |
| 3 | Each step is costed from real quotes and measured times, and quality checkpoints are named with an owner. |
| 4 | Someone else runs it from the written process. The capacity ceiling is known and what breaks first is named. |
| 5 | Capacity and quality are measured on a rhythm, and the constraint is managed deliberately rather than discovered. |

## 07 · Money — unit economics and runway

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | The price is known. The cost is a feeling. |
| 2 | A cost per unit is written down, built from estimates. |
| 3 | Every line of that cost traces to an invoice, a quote or a measured time, and runway is a number with a date on it. |
| 4 | Costing exists at volume bands, working capital for the biggest realistic order is known, and CAC is measured. |
| 5 | The model updates from actuals on a rhythm, and pricing decisions are made against it. |

## 08 · Capital — fundraise readiness

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | "We're raising", with no amount, milestone or use of funds. |
| 2 | An amount and a use of funds are written down. A deck exists. |
| 3 | The raise is tied to a named milestone, and every number in the deck matches the stack. |
| 4 | Data room assembled, dilution mapped across rounds, non-dilutive options identified and applied for. |
| 5 | Investor conversations are tracked with the reason for each pass, and the next milestone is being built toward deliberately. |

## 09 · Brand — name, position, system

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | A name, and a logo somebody made as a favour. |
| 2 | Positioning is written in a sentence. Colours and fonts are used inconsistently. |
| 3 | A design system file exists — fonts, colours, spacing, voice — and outputs are built against it. The trademark position is known. |
| 4 | Every artifact comes out consistent without anyone specifying it, and the website and the stack say the same things. |
| 5 | Positioning is tested against how customers actually describe them, and revised when the two diverge. |

## 10 · Pulse — the operating rhythm

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | No metrics. Progress is described in anecdotes. |
| 2 | Three to six metrics are defined. Measured occasionally. |
| 3 | A weekly recap for four consecutive weeks, including a bad one. |
| 4 | Twelve consecutive weeks. Commitments carry forward and get closed out. Every metric falls out of records already kept. |
| 5 | The recap drives decisions — things get stopped because of it, not merely reported in it. |

---

## Scoring rules

**Score from the record, not from the conversation.** If nothing in `sessions/` or the founder's brief evidences a level, it has not been evidenced. This is the rule that keeps the number comparable, and it is the one most often broken immediately after a good meeting.

**On a tie, score down.** A function halfway between 2 and 3 is a 2. The rubric is for routing, and routing a company to help it does not need does less damage than the reverse.

**Score the ten sections, never the folders inside them.** What a company keeps inside `04-product` is its own business. That it is at level 2 on product is comparable across the portfolio, and comparability is the only reason this file exists.

**Expect a jagged profile.** A 4 on product and a 1 on money is normal, common, and precisely the pattern worth catching — it is a company building something good that will run out of money while building it.

**Re-score quarterly, not per session.** A number that moves every fortnight is measuring the coach's mood. Movement between quarters is progress you can describe to a funder without inventing a metric.

**Say what would raise it.** A score with no next action is a label. `2 → needs three supplier quotes so the unit cost traces to something` is a task with a start date, and it is what the founder should see.

## What each score routes to

The point of a low score is that it names who should see the company next, and what they should do.

| Function | Route a 1 or 2 to | What closes the gap |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 01 company | Legal or governance | [`worksheets/advisor-scope.md`](../worksheets/advisor-scope.md) |
| 02 customer | Customer discovery | [`prompts/03-customer-and-problem.md`](../prompts/03-customer-and-problem.md) |
| 03 market | Market and competition | [`prompts/04-market-sizing.md`](../prompts/04-market-sizing.md), [`05`](../prompts/05-competitive-intelligence.md), [`15`](../prompts/15-scrape-a-site.md) |
| 04 product | Product and technology | [`prompts/06-product-and-roadmap.md`](../prompts/06-product-and-roadmap.md) |
| 05 gtm | Sales and growth | [`prompts/08-list-of-100.md`](../prompts/08-list-of-100.md), [`09`](../prompts/09-marketing-engine.md) |
| 06 operations | Operations | [`worksheets/sop-entry.md`](../worksheets/sop-entry.md) |
| 07 money | Finance | [`prompts/07-unit-economics.md`](../prompts/07-unit-economics.md) |
| 08 capital | Fundraising | [`prompts/11-fundraise-readiness.md`](../prompts/11-fundraise-readiness.md), [`10`](../prompts/10-pitch-deck.md) |
| 09 brand | Brand and design | `stack/09-brand/brand.md` |
| 10 pulse | The programme itself | [`prompts/12-weekly-recap.md`](../prompts/12-weekly-recap.md) |

Adjust the middle column to the specialists you actually have. A programme with no finance specialist should say so, because the alternative is a routing table that quietly sends every money problem nowhere.

**Several companies low on the same function is not several coaching problems.** It is next month's workshop. [themes.md](themes.md) is where that gets written down.

## Recording a score

In each company's `record.md`, as a table with a date and a one-line reason:

```markdown
| Function | Level | Since | Why this level, and what would raise it |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 07 money | 2 | 2026-07-22 | Cost per unit written down but built from estimates.
  Three supplier quotes would evidence it. |
```

The reason column is not optional. A number without it cannot be checked by the next coach, cannot be explained to the founder, and cannot be defended when someone asks why a company was routed the way it was.