The standard I hold ventures to.

Endorsement is not a logo swap. When a venture carries the name, it makes a claim. I check that claim on a fixed cadence. Four fixed questions, no exceptions.

Does it govern itself properly

A venture needs clear ownership and clean records. It needs accounts that close on time. They must reconcile too. It needs decisions written down. Not remembered later, differently, after the fact.

This sounds basic. It is basic. Basic is also where young companies drift first. A missed record becomes two. A late filing becomes a habit. I check the habit before it forms.

Does it treat customers fairly

Terms should be readable by the signer. Not just their lawyer. Pricing should match what was promised at the pitch. Cancellation should not require an argument.

I ask each venture for its actual terms. Not a summary of them. If a clause would embarrass me read aloud, it gets rewritten. That happens before launch, not after a complaint.

Does it hold its claims to evidence

This is the clause I enforce hardest. A venture can say a tool cuts incidents. It has to show the number. The sample size too. And the period measured.

Adjectives are cheap. Powerful, advanced, best-in-class — none of them survive a spreadsheet. I would rather a venture said less and proved more.

Does it survive the founder taking a week off

Founder dependency is the quiet killer of small companies. One person might hold every client relationship. Every password, every decision too. If so, there is no company yet. There is a very good employee.

I look for documented process. A second signature on anything material. And one other person who could explain the business. To a complete stranger. If that person is missing, that is the most urgent gap. Not a detail to fix later.

What happens when a venture fails a question

It stays unendorsed. Not punished — unendorsed. The distinction matters. A venture in development is still mine to support. It simply does not carry the name publicly yet.

I write down exactly which question failed. And why. It goes on the record, in plain terms. With a date for re-review. There is no vague let’s-revisit-this. There is a question, an answer, a deadline.

Why the bar does not move

A fast round is not evidence of governance. Neither is a good story, however well told. I have declined to accelerate an endorsement once. The pitch was strong. Strength of pitch is not one of the four questions.

This will occasionally cost me pace. A ready venture might wait an extra month. Its records need to catch up first.

I accept that cost. The alternative costs more. Endorsing something I cannot stand behind spends the credibility. That credibility does not renew itself once spent.

Why I publish this at all

I could keep this standard private. Plenty of holding companies do. I publish it instead, on purpose. A public standard is harder to quietly lower. It also tells a venture what it is signing up for. No surprises after the equity is committed. Buyers and partners get the same clarity. They can check my claims against this page. That is accountability, not marketing. I would rather be checked than trusted blindly.

The review itself

At each review, each venture faces the same four questions. Same rubric, regardless of how the last stretch went. Good news does not buy a pass. Neither does a difficult one.

Findings are logged. Repeated findings get harder to ignore. A venture clearing all four for a year earns nothing extra. No plaque, no announcement. It simply keeps the endorsement it already had. That was always the point.

What this standard is actually for

Not to slow ventures down for its own sake. It exists so a specific sentence means something. An ITSM Ltd brand: governed, fairly run, evidenced. Built to survive its founder’s absence.

That is a narrow promise. I intend to keep it narrow.