A sophisticated buyer will push on the growth story in the first meeting. Not the numbers — the structural argument behind them. Why will this company be worth more in three to five years? Which buyers believe in that move most — and which ones are you targeting because of it?
Most CIMs answer those questions with aspiration — market size, roadmap, competitive position. A buyer who has seen a hundred of these knows the difference between a narrative assembled for the document and one rooted in what the company is structurally positioned to do. The two-move framework helps surface that argument before you go to market — Move 1: what question the company is really organized around. Move 2: whether it's becoming workflow or environment — and tells you honestly which version of it the asset warrants.
There is a difference between a narrative assembled from market data and a genuine argument rooted in what the company is structurally positioned to do. The two-move framework identifies which one you have — and builds the CIM around the honest version: the optionality argument if both moves are real, the infrastructure argument if they aren't.
The answer to both questions shapes everything: the equity story, the buyer universe, the management presentation brief, and the honest version of the CIM growth narrative. Getting the argument wrong — claiming optionality the architecture doesn't support — is more expensive than claiming infrastructure at the right multiple.
The honest version of the CIM is the most valuable version. A buyer who is sold optionality and finds infrastructure will reprice on the way to close. A buyer who is sold a clear, specific thesis they believe in — whether that's infrastructure honestly priced or a genuine category argument — is more likely to hold through close.
The two-move framework produces whichever version is true. If the asset warrants the optionality argument, it builds that case with analytical foundation rather than aspiration. If it doesn't, it builds the infrastructure argument honestly — and targets the buyers for whom that is exactly what they want.
Most sell-side narratives are assembled from market data and roadmap. A buyer who has seen a hundred of them knows the difference between a story built for the document and an argument rooted in what the company is structurally positioned to do. The Equity Story finds the honest argument, builds the case that it's real, and prepares the asset to defend it under diligence — before the process starts, while there's still time to close the gaps a buyer would otherwise use to reprice.
The Equity Story is priced the way the work creates value — to the asset and the transaction, not to hours. The base scales with the size of the asset and how far the engagement runs: from packaging a story that's already provable, to running the motion that proves it first, to preparing the whole arc for a sale. The structure is settled in a first conversation, against the specific asset and timeline.
Start with a conversation →A 30-minute call to confirm the asset has a claim worth building the case around. If it doesn't, I'll tell you — and the honest infrastructure version is still worth having.
Before an asset's own brief comes the map of where it sits. The category brief applies both moves across an entire category — where each vendor lands on the two-move matrix, which directions sit open, and what equity story each asset profile could credibly support. The worked example covers Revenue Intelligence, and the framework applies to any B2B SaaS category. Where this maps the whole field, The Equity Story turns the same lens on a single asset — the company-specific brief it takes to market.
For advisors, founders, and sellers who want to see the framework applied to a real category — or discuss whether it is relevant to a live mandate.
No list. No sequence. Just the brief, sent once.