Blueprint Intelligence / Data Room and DDQ / Team, what the DDQ asks for beyond bios
Data Room and DDQ
Team, what the DDQ asks for beyond bios
Bios establish who is on the team. This section of the DDQ establishes what each person actually spends their time on, what they are compensated on, and whether any of that creates a conflict the rest of the room needs to know about.
A pitch deck's team slide establishes credentials. The DDQ's team section asks something more specific: how much of each person's actual working time goes to the fund, what outside activities or board seats they hold, how compensation and carry are structured, and whether any of that matches the firm's own regulatory filings exactly. Succession and key-person provisions are covered on their own page in this pillar; this section is about the team as it operates day to day.
ILPA and ILPA DDQ are marks of the Institutional Limited Partners Association. Blueprint is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or certified by ILPA.
Time allocation is a specific, checkable disclosure
An allocator reading this section wants a real percentage, not a general assurance of commitment: how much of each investment professional's working time goes to this fund specifically, and what else occupies the remainder. A partner who also advises a separate company, sits on an unrelated board, or manages personal angel investments needs that disclosed here, plainly, rather than surfaced later as something the GP did not think to mention.
What has to match, exactly
- Team bios and roles, matching what is filed with regulators exactly, not a more polished or more senior-sounding version used in marketing materials.
- Time allocation and any outside activities, disclosed for each investment professional, not only the named partners.
- Compensation and carry structure, including the vesting schedule and the clawback mechanism if carry is later found to have been miscalculated.
- Headcount history and a forward hiring plan, showing the team's actual trajectory rather than a snapshot.
Why the SEC-filing match matters more than it seems
A bio that reads slightly differently in the DDQ than it does in a firm's own regulatory filing is a small inconsistency with an outsized read: it suggests the firm's public-facing description of itself and its actual filed record are not the same document, which is exactly the kind of drift a governance-focused reviewer is trained to notice first. Pulling team detail directly from the filing itself, rather than from an internal bio document that may have drifted from it over time, is the reliable way to avoid this.
A team bio that does not match a firm's own regulatory filing exactly reads as a governance inconsistency, not a stylistic difference, regardless of which version happens to be more accurate.
Check your team documentation
Upload your team bios or your regulatory filings, and check them against each other. No signup required for your first result.
One document, PDF or Word. Blueprint reads it to produce this one result and does not keep it afterward.
The Diagnostic is free.
Complete the intake, upload up to 10 documents, and receive your initial readiness snapshot and diligence coverage map. Upgrade when you are ready to build.