Built from twelve years running distribution on the ground in Africa, and verified against primary institutional sources. Pick the one that matches what you're deciding.
A ten-minute pressure test across six dimensions, distribution economics, regulatory timing, exit realism, demand validation, team resilience, and currency risk, before the deal reaches an investment committee.
A three-part check, run before or during a live partnership: what has to be true first, whether the deal is actually worth doing, and whether it will still make sense in five years, the point where most of these projects actually fail.
An investor and a corporate partnership team are asking different questions about the same markets. An investor wants to know whether a deal should get funded. A partnership team already has capital committed, or about to be, and needs to know whether the specific partner and structure in front of them will hold up.
Both tools draw on the same underlying corpus, the same regulatory instruments, the same three-test standard for every figure. The difference is the lens, not the sourcing.
The two checklists above ask you a fixed set of questions. This one lets you ask yours. Name a market and a sector, and it returns an operator read built from the same corpus, with the confidence level, source tier and evidence gaps attached to every figure rather than stripped out of it.
Post-mortems on real African deals, tested only against information available at the time.
See the retrospectives →Every figure passes a three-test standard: recency, specificity, operator interpretability. This is what both doors are built on.
Ask about access →