This page is mostly empty. That's deliberate — it was published before the first cohort ran, stating exactly what we'll report and when, so we can't decide after the fact which numbers to show you.
Borrowed from clinical research, where the reporting standard is fixed before the trial runs so results can't be selected afterwards. There is no equivalent convention in business services, which is precisely why it's worth doing.
Six commitments, made before we know what the answer is:
Every business that records a baseline appears in the results table, including those that refund, defer or drop out. Nobody is quietly omitted for having an inconvenient number.
People we decline still have a recorded baseline. Their scores are reported alongside, so you can see whether we were accepting businesses that were already better placed.
Alongside any average, the lowest individual delta in the cohort is stated. A set where everything worked isn't a result set — it's a selection.
Grouped figures — by industry, revenue band or weakest section — are only published where at least five businesses sit in the group. At a cohort of fifteen, industry plus revenue band plus metric identifies exactly one firm.
A qualified accountant with no financial interest in this business confirms that the per-client table matches source records and that no client with a recorded baseline was omitted. Their name appears on the results.
If we publish something wrong, the correction is dated and appears below the figure. The original stays visible.
Structure fixed now. Numbers land on the dates shown. If a table is still empty after its due date, that is itself a result and should be read as one.
Currently empty. Cohort one has not run.Nothing on this page has been measured yet. If you are evaluating this programme today, evaluate it on the reasoning and the reporting standard — not on results, because there aren't any.
| Client | Baseline | Day 90 | Delta | Weakest at start | Weakest at 90 | Outcome | Owner gates |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 02 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 03 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| … | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Median | — | — | — | — | |||
| Lowest delta | — |
Rows are anonymised — no industry or revenue band at the individual line, because those two fields together would identify a business at this cohort size. Industry-level figures appear in Table 2, and only where a group has five or more members. Outcome is one of: completed · refunded at week 3 · deferred · dropped out.
| Measure | Cohort 1 | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Baselines recorded | — | — |
| Completed all 90 days | — | — |
| Refunded at week 3 | — | — |
| Deferred to next cohort | — | — |
| Dropped out without refund | — | — |
| Median delta | — | — |
| Moved 6+ points | — | — |
| Score guarantee triggered | — | — |
| Owner gate attendance | — | — |
| Delegate session attendance | — | — |
| Had a viable 2IC at start | — | — |
| Delta, with 2IC vs without | — | — |
The last two rows test something we've asserted but not measured: that having a capable second-in-command changes the outcome, not just the owner's hours. If it turns out not to, that gets published and the offer changes.
| Reason declined | Count | By lane |
|---|---|---|
| Score already 17+ | — | — |
| No 2IC, unwilling to be the delegate | — | — |
| Data lives on paper | — | — |
| Wrong stage — too early or too large | — | — |
| Right fit, wrong quarter | — | — |
| Applications received | — | — |
| Declined | — | — |
Lanes are how people reached us: crisis (score 8 or under, direct booking), referral, or standard. Rejection rates will differ by lane and the difference is worth knowing publicly. If we declined nobody, this table says so.
| Baseline measure | Accepted | Declined |
|---|---|---|
| n | — | — |
| Median score | — | — |
| Range | — | — |
| Most common weakest section | — | — |
| Had a viable 2IC | — | — |
This table exists to answer a question nobody asks out loud: were the results good because the programme worked, or because we selected businesses that were already going to improve? You can't fully answer that without a control group we don't have — but you can see the starting positions of both groups, which is more than most published results give you.
Three things. Each is labelled with what it does and doesn't tell you.
One named client, publicly verifiable — from the framework's earlier life
Vivek Iyyani, coached in 2018. He wrote, on his own LinkedIn profile: that the programme was “very well systemized with specific steps and stages throughout the journey,” and that he made a “300% return on my full investment.”
What it tells you: the framework produced a result for at least one person, in his words, publicly attributed, and you can go and read it yourself.
What it doesn't: it's from 2018, it was one-to-one coaching rather than this programme, and the 300% is his own figure — he calculated it, not us. It is evidence about the framework and how we work. It is not evidence about the Instruments Install.
Owner-reported clarity of positioning, rules and ownership after install.
Hours reclaimed, decisions no longer routed to the owner, confidence to step away.
What it will tell you: where businesses of this size actually score, and which section is weakest most often. That's a real finding and it's ours.
What it won't: anything about whether the programme changes the score. A baseline is not an outcome.
Published benchmarks on month-end close timing, documented close checklists, owner-dependency valuation multiples and AI adoption rates — each cited with its source and its limitations on the pages where it appears, including where the source is an interested party.
What it tells you: the problem is real and measurable. What it doesn't: that our answer to it works.
No cohort has completed. No before-and-after score exists. Every claim about what 90 days does is currently a hypothesis derived from why other approaches fail — which is a legitimate basis for a design and not a substitute for evidence. The founders cohort is priced lower than the next one precisely because it produces this. That's the trade, stated plainly rather than framed as generosity.
We measure whether the operating system becomes visible and documented. We are not measuring revenue, profit or valuation, and we won't claim a link we haven't tested. It's plausible that visibility leads to better decisions. Plausible is not proven, and this page won't pretend otherwise.
They might not be. The tables above are the same tables whether the numbers are strong or weak, which is the entire point of publishing them before the data exists.
If these tables are still empty after their due date, that is itself a result — and you should read it as one.
Four things you can verify without taking our word for anything.
The twelve questions and the full scoring rubric are public — 0, 1 or 2 against a written definition per question. Run it on your own business, or on ours. Run the diagnostic →
It's on Vivek Iyyani's public LinkedIn profile, dated, in his words. We didn't commission it and we can't edit it.
If you're a client, you're welcome to have your accountant present at the day-90 scoring. We've never had a reason to say no.
This page was published in August 2026. Compare what it promised then against what appears here later. That comparison is the most useful thing on this page.
References are offered only after a fit call — not before, not on demand.
References are cohort clients who opted in, named with permission.
On request, we will also connect you with someone who left the program.
No corrections issued. Any correction will be dated and appear here with the original figure visible beside it.
Ask any vendor these seven questions — us included. Question six is pinned open because it is the one vendors dodge.
The documented operating system — every checklist, map, and file — plus your scoreline export. In writing.
See the tables above. Per-client deltas, a cohort summary, and grouped figures only where the group has five or more members — pre-committed before cohort 1 completes.
Outcome is recorded per client in Table 1: completed, refunded at week 3, deferred, or dropped out. Refund exits are counted separately, never hidden inside "dropped".
They publish. Table 2 counts refunds and deferrals in the open, and Table 3 counts the people we turned down — empty today, committed to fill.
The founder. Capacity is stated as founder-bandwidth fact, not scarcity marketing.
Yes — on request, after a fit call. Departures are references too.