Commercial Transformation Index · Full CTI Audit
Find the constraints your commercial system cannot show you.
The Full CTI Audit is a validated commercial audit of a whole commercial system. The Commercial Transformation Index (CTI) assesses all ten commercial domains against reviewed evidence, then establishes where capability in one is limiting the value produced by another.
- Ten domains, 5,000+ signals Evidence gathered across the whole commercial system
- Relationships and constraints However many the evidence supports, each located between domains
- Validated position, then sequence What to address, in the order the system depends on
The scale of the model
Four figures describe what a Full CTI Audit covers.
A signal is an evidence input, not a score. Domains do not produce them in equal volume, because commercial systems are not documented in equal volume: Website, CRM and Marketing generate materially more observable evidence than a narrower domain such as Pricing. The CTI score is produced by the governed assessment model rather than by counting signals.
- Commercial domains
- 10
- Assessed individually and in relationship
- Signals
- 5,000+
- Observed, derived, contextual and relational, across the ten domains
- Maximum audit points
- 250
- The validated Full CTI Audit scale
- Commercial maturity bands
- 6
- Critical through Optimised
Why it exists
The visible problem is rarely the whole problem.
A commercial system under strain produces its symptoms in the function least able to absorb them, which is almost never the function causing them. Marketing is asked why leads are weak when a customer definition already determined their quality. Sales is asked why conversion has fallen when positioning already capped it. Operations is asked to absorb commitments made without a mechanism to carry them.
Each of those functions answers honestly about itself, and every answer is defensible on its own evidence. The constraint stays where it was: in the dependencies and handoffs between them, where no single function has authority, visibility or a reason to look. That is the specific thing this audit is built to establish, and it establishes it with reviewed evidence rather than with a view.
Why organisations commission one
Seven decisions where an opinion is not sufficient.
A validated audit is not the right answer for every question, and there are questions where it is the only right answer. Each of these is a decision with money, credibility or public accountability attached to getting it wrong, and in each one an internal view has already been tried.
01 Capital is going into a commercial system
Financial performance describes what a commercial system has already produced. It does not establish whether that system can carry what is about to be put through it. Before investment is committed, somebody has to establish which part of the system will fail first under the load, and that is a question about relationships rather than about any single function.
- The question
- Can this commercial system carry the investment?
- Why evidence matters
- A capability that has never been tested at the new volume cannot be assessed from its own account of itself.
02 The organisation is preparing to scale
Scale does not expose the weakest function. It exposes the weakest relationship between two functions, and usually the one nobody is accountable for. Establishing which handoff is already marginal is considerably cheaper before the volume arrives than after it.
- The question
- Which relationship breaks first when volume doubles?
- Why evidence matters
- Each function can demonstrate that it is coping. The handoff between them is where the account stops.
03 A transformation programme has to be sequenced
Most transformation programmes are defeated by ordering rather than by ambition. Work is done in the order it is easiest to start rather than in the order the system depends on, and the improvements do not hold. A validated baseline establishes which constraint has to move first because the others are waiting on it.
- The question
- What has to change first for the rest to hold?
- Why evidence matters
- Sequencing derived from dependency survives challenge. Sequencing derived from enthusiasm does not.
04 The leadership team cannot agree where the problem is
Every function can produce evidence that it is performing, and every one of those accounts is usually honest. The disagreement persists because the constraint sits in the relationships between them, where no single function has authority or visibility. Independent reviewed evidence about those relationships ends the argument faster than another quarter of trying.
- The question
- Whose account of the business is correct?
- Why evidence matters
- A finding that states what it rests on can be argued with. An opinion can only be outranked.
05 Somebody outside the business will examine the answer
An internal view of commercial maturity does not survive external scrutiny, because the person examining it has no reason to accept an assertion. A validated position holds, because the evidence behind every finding has been reviewed and is stated, including the evidence that does not support the claim it was gathered for.
- The question
- Will this position hold in front of a sceptical reader?
- Why evidence matters
- Diligence, boards and funders test the evidence, not the confidence of the presentation.
06 A programme is funding commercial capability across several organisations
A publicly funded or industry programme supporting commercial capability needs the same question answered about every participant, in the same way, so the answers can be compared. One methodology applied across a cohort produces a comparable baseline, shows which constraints recur across the group, and makes the case for where support should be targeted.
- The question
- Where is commercial capability constrained across this cohort?
- Why evidence matters
- Comparability is a property of the method. Assessments run different ways cannot be aggregated afterwards.
07 Change has been delivered and somebody has to show it worked
Activity is easy to report and movement is not. A validated position taken before the work establishes a baseline; reassessing against the same evidence standard afterwards shows what moved and what did not. Without the first measurement the second one has nothing to be measured against.
- The question
- Did the commercial system actually improve?
- Why evidence matters
- Movement is only demonstrable where the before and after were assessed the same way.
Cross-domain constraint analysis
Ten strong functions do not make a strong commercial system.
This is the part of the audit no functional review can reproduce, because a functional review assesses each domain against its own objectives and sees only what that domain can see. The relationships between domains are assessed directly here, as their own evidence, so a constraint carried between two systems surfaces as one finding rather than being distributed invisibly across both of their readings. Ten domains that each report acceptable capability can still describe a commercial system that loses value at every boundary between them.
- Dependency
What a domain requires from the domain upstream of it, and whether it arrives in a form that domain can use without repairing it first. An unmet dependency is a cost carried by the receiving function and reported by neither.
- Handoff
What is lost where work and commercial context cross a boundary. No single function owns both sides of a handoff, which is why the loss is rarely reported by either of them.
- Influence
What a domain changes about a domain it does not directly feed. This is where the least visible commercial losses live, because no process connects the two.
- Evidence disagreement
Where two domains give incompatible accounts of the same commercial reality. The disagreement is a finding about the system rather than an error to be reconciled quietly, because it shows the system cannot see itself consistently.
- Amplification
Where Automation is multiplying a process, and whether the process underneath it is reliable enough to be worth multiplying. Automation applied to an unreliable process increases the rate of the loss.
What the audit establishes
What the evidence is examined for.
Seven analytical lenses, applied to every one of the ten domains and to the relationships between them. Each lens asks a commercial question, and each reading carries the class of evidence behind it and the confidence attached to it, so the report can be used in front of somebody whose job is to find the weak point in it.
01 Capability
What each of the ten commercial domains can actually do, assessed against evidence rather than against intent. A capability that exists in one person, one spreadsheet or one quarter is recorded as what it is, because a commercial system is what it can repeat rather than what it managed once.
- The question
- What can this part of the commercial system reliably do?
- What review establishes
- Whether the capability is demonstrated by evidence or described in an account of itself.
- Why it matters
- Every downstream domain is working with what this one actually produces, not with what it intends to.
02 Dependency
What a domain requires from the domain upstream of it, and whether it receives it in a usable form. A dependency that is met late, partially or in a form the receiving domain has to repair is a commercial cost carried by the wrong function.
- The question
- Is each domain getting what it needs, in a form it can use?
- What review establishes
- Where a requirement is unmet, and which domain is absorbing the cost of that.
- Why it matters
- A domain cannot outperform what reaches it, however well it is run.
03 Handoff
What happens at the points where work, information or commercial context passes between domains. Handoffs are the least governed part of most commercial systems because no single function owns both sides of one, which is exactly why commercial context is lost there.
- The question
- What is lost when work crosses a boundary?
- What review establishes
- Which context was present before the handoff and absent after it, evidenced on both sides.
- Why it matters
- A handoff that loses commercial context is a finding, not an operational detail.
04 Constraint
Which weakness is holding the others in place. The constraint is identified through the relationships between domains rather than by ranking domain readings against each other, because the lowest reading and the binding constraint are frequently not the same domain.
- The question
- Which single weakness is limiting the rest of the system?
- What review establishes
- The relationship the limit travels through, and the evidence that it does.
- Why it matters
- Improving anything downstream of a binding constraint produces very little.
05 Evidence consistency
Where the account the business gives of itself and the evidence available about it disagree. Disagreement is not treated as dishonesty and is usually not; it is treated as a finding, because a system that cannot be evidenced consistently is usually a system that is not being managed consistently.
- The question
- Do the evidence and the account of the business agree?
- What review establishes
- Which claims are supported by reviewable evidence, which rest on assertion, and where the two conflict.
- Why it matters
- An evidence gap is a finding in its own right, and it is one that somebody else will find.
06 Commercial consequence
What each weakness costs, and where. Value created upstream that fails to reach the outcome it was created for is traced to the point it was lost at rather than attributed to the function that reported the shortfall.
- The question
- Where is commercial value being lost, and to what?
- What review establishes
- The point of loss and what it is attributable to, stated as a relationship.
- Why it matters
- A weakness with no commercial consequence is not a priority, however visible it is.
07 Priority and order
What has to change first, and what each change unlocks once it does. The order comes from dependency and commercial consequence, and the reasoning behind each position is stated so that it can be argued with rather than accepted.
- The question
- In what order should this be addressed?
- What review establishes
- Which constraints are waiting on which, and what becomes possible at each step.
- Why it matters
- The order is the part of the answer that changes what a transformation programme returns.
What you receive
A validated position, and the sequence that follows from it.
Nine outputs, delivered as one report and worked through in a readout. The score and the band establish where the commercial system stands on a consistent scale. The constraint analysis, the evidence behind it and the order it produces are what change a commercial decision, and what a later reassessment is measured against.
01 A validated CTI score
The assessed position of the whole commercial system on the 250 point Commercial Transformation Index scale, with the class of evidence behind each reading recorded. It is a validated score rather than a reported one, which is what allows it to be used somewhere it will be tested.
02 A validated Commercial Maturity Band
Which of the 6 operating states the commercial system is in, from Critical through Optimised, established from reviewed evidence. A band describes how a commercial system operates rather than rating the organisation running it.
03 A profile across all ten commercial domains
Assessed capability in each of the 10 domains, presented as a shape rather than as an average, so that a strong overall position cannot conceal a single domain constraining everything downstream of it.
04 Cross-domain constraint analysis
Where capability in one domain is limiting the value produced in another, named as a relationship rather than as two separate weaknesses, with the dependency, the evidence and the commercial consequence stated for each one.
05 The evidence trail behind every finding
What was reviewed for each finding and what it does not establish. More than 5,000+ signals inform the assessment across the ten domains, and the trail is written so the report can be handed to somebody whose job is to find the weak point in it.
06 Key findings and their commercial consequence
What the evidence establishes, stated in commercial terms rather than as a maturity vocabulary. Each finding carries what it rests on, what follows from it, and what it does not permit anybody to conclude.
07 Priority actions and a recommended sequence
What to address, in what order, and what each change unlocks. Dependencies are explicit and the reasoning behind each position is stated, so the sequence can be challenged on its logic rather than accepted on authority.
08 An executive readout
A working session with the leadership team on what the evidence supports, what it does not, and the decisions that follow from it. The audit ends with a decision rather than with a document being sent.
09 A baseline for later reassessment
The validated position, the evidence standard and the method version are retained, so that a later assessment measures movement against the same basis rather than producing a second unrelated number.
What the audit is actually for
The output is not the score. It is the sequence.
The score and the band matter and are governed outputs: they establish where a commercial system stands on one consistent scale, they are what a later reassessment is measured against, and they are what somebody outside the business can be shown. An audit that produced no position would not be an audit.
What they do not do is tell anybody what to do on Monday. The commercial value sits in what is constraining the system, why, what the evidence for that is, what it is costing, which constraint has to move first because the others depend on it, and what each change unlocks once it does.
The report
How a Full CTI Audit report is structured.
Eight sections, one of them repeated for each of the ten commercial domains, so the report covers the whole commercial system rather than a sample of it. Domain findings and cross-domain findings both appear, provenance and confidence travel with every finding, and the priorities carry through to what they imply for delivery. Structure only: no organisation, no score and no finding appears here, because a fabricated example would undermine the one thing the report is for.
01 Executive system diagnosis
The headline state of the commercial system in one place: the validated Commercial Maturity Band, the CTI score, the principal constraint on the system and the most material opportunity in it. Written so the leadership team can act on the first page and use the rest as the argument behind it.
02 Commercial system map
All ten domains shown as one connected system with the relationship view rather than as ten separate readings. This is the section that makes a whole-system position legible: where capability sits, where it travels and where it stops.
03 Domain assessments
Ten sections, one for each commercial domain, each covering the assessed position, what was examined, what the evidence establishes, how it should be interpreted and what it implies for the domains around it.
04 Cross-domain findings
The explicit relationships between domains: demand outpacing the maturity of the system meant to hold it, commercial strength created in one place and lost in another, a dependency met in a form the receiving domain cannot use. Each one is stated as a relationship with its evidence.
05 Priority matrix
Every finding positioned on impact, urgency, dependency and sequencing, so that priority is derived from the system rather than from whichever finding is most uncomfortable.
06 Evidence register
What was reviewed, the class of every piece of evidence, the provenance of each and the confidence attached to it, together with what the evidence base does not establish. This is the section that lets a reader test the report instead of trusting it.
07 Benchmark context
Comparison against a relevant population, included only where the comparison is statistically and methodologically valid. Where the available cohort will not support a comparison, the section says so rather than offering a number that would not survive being asked about.
08 Transformation priorities
What to address first and why, carried through to the implications for delivery: what each priority depends on, what it unlocks, and what the organisation will be able to demonstrate once it has moved.
How the audit runs
Six stages, from the decision to the readout.
Every stage does work the next one depends on, and evidence review is the stage that separates this route from every other. The six are the same on every audit, because the assessment covers all ten domains on the same scale every time. What changes is the decision the audit has to inform, and the evidence that decision needs.
01 Decision context
What decision the audit has to inform, who will read the result, and what it will have to withstand. The assessment itself does not narrow: every audit covers all ten domains on the same scale. What the decision context changes is which evidence is gathered first and what the readout has to resolve.
02 Evidence
Observed evidence is gathered directly. Self-reported evidence is captured from the people who actually run each system rather than from whoever is available. Supporting material is collected for review, and where it does not exist for a capability, that absence is recorded rather than filled in.
03 Assessment
Each of the ten commercial domains is assessed against the evidence available, with confidence recorded alongside every reading. An assessment made on thin evidence is marked as such rather than presented at the same strength as one made on strong evidence.
04 Validation
Claims are tested against supporting material. Where the evidence does not support a claim, the finding records that rather than working around it, and where the evidence and the account disagree, the disagreement itself becomes part of the finding.
05 Whole-system analysis
The relationships between domains are analysed to establish where the constraint sits, what it is holding in place, what it is costing and what order the findings have to be addressed in. This is the part of the audit no functional review can reproduce.
06 Report and readout
The score, band, system map, domain assessments, cross-domain findings, priorities and sequence are delivered and worked through with the leadership team, so that the audit closes on the decisions that follow from it.
Before you commission it
Is a Full CTI Audit justified for your question?
It is the deepest route, and it is not automatically the right one. These four questions are about the decision behind the assessment rather than about the business, and they point elsewhere whenever elsewhere is correct.
Answered in the page. Nothing is sent, and no contact details are requested.
Is a Full CTI Audit justified?
The validated route is not the right answer for everyone.
Four questions about the decision behind the assessment, not about the business.
Progress: Question 1 of 4
Government, public bodies and programmes
One commercial methodology, applied across every organisation in a programme.
Government departments and agencies, economic development programmes, publicly funded business support, regional commercial capability initiatives, industry programmes and cohort interventions all face the same problem. They need the same commercial question answered about every participant, in the same way, so that the answers can be compared, aggregated and acted on. Assessments run to different methods cannot be compared afterwards, whatever is done to the data.
A Full CTI Audit is a whole-system commercial audit against a published methodology, so it can be commissioned for one organisation or across a cohort of them. What a programme gets from the second is a comparable baseline it can aggregate, target support against, design the next intervention from, and measure real movement on when it reassesses. The method, the evidence classes and the publication rules are public, so a programme can examine what it is commissioning before it commissions it, and can explain to participants, to evaluators and to funders exactly what the assessment will and will not establish.
-
A comparable commercial baseline
Every participating organisation assessed against the same ten commercial domains, the same evidence standard and the same 250 point scale, so results can legitimately be read against each other and against the cohort as a whole. Comparability is a property of the method: it cannot be added afterwards to assessments that were run different ways, which is the usual reason business support data cannot be aggregated.
-
The constraints that recur across a cohort
Where the same commercial weakness appears across participants, and where a weakness is specific to a sector, a size band, a region or a growth stage. That distinction is what separates a systemic intervention worth funding once from a series of individual ones, and it is visible only when every participant has been assessed the same way.
-
Evidence for targeting support
Which constraints are worth addressing at programme level, which participants are constrained by something support can actually change, and which are constrained by something it cannot. A programme that knows where the constraint sits can aim support at it rather than distributing the same intervention evenly and hoping it lands.
-
Evidence for designing the next programme
Baseline commercial capability across a defined population, in a form that can inform what the next intervention should address, who it should reach and what it should be expected to move. Programme design normally rests on what participants say they need. This rests on what the evidence shows they are constrained by.
-
Reassessment, and movement that can be measured
Reassessing against the same method and the same evidence standard shows what actually moved, for which participants, and in which domains. Change is demonstrated by measurement rather than reported from the activity that was funded, which is the distinction most commercial capability programmes are asked for and cannot produce.
-
Aggregate intelligence, with provenance attached
Findings about the population rather than about its members, published with the cohort, the period and the evidence classes beside every figure. No individual organisation, result or score is ever published, and a figure is suppressed where the cohort behind it is too small to describe a population rather than the organisations in it.
Who commissions it
The decisions this audit is built to inform.
Alongside the government, public and industry programmes set out above, six commercial decisions account for most Full CTI Audits. Each one is a moment where an internal view of commercial capability has stopped being sufficient, and where the answer has to hold in front of somebody who did not produce it.
- Leadership
SME and mid-market leadership teams
Where growth has slowed and each function can demonstrate that it is not the reason.
- Scale-up
Organisations preparing to scale
Scale exposes whichever commercial relationship is weakest. Establishing which one before the load arrives is considerably cheaper than discovering it afterwards.
- Transformation
Transformation and change programmes
A validated baseline is what makes movement demonstrable later, rather than asserted from the activity that was delivered.
- Investors
Investors, private equity and acquirers
Commercial diligence on whether the system producing the numbers is structured to keep producing them.
- Boards
Boards and non-executives
Independent reviewed evidence about commercial capability, in a form that does not depend on which executive is presenting it.
- Advisors
Advisors and delivery partners
A diagnostic baseline before recommending or delivering anything, so the work is aimed at the constraint rather than at the symptom.
The four evidence classes
What evidence review actually changes.
A Full CTI Audit can draw on all four Commercial Transformation Index evidence classes, and which of them a finding rests on is recorded against that finding, because it decides what the finding can be used for. Not every class appears in every audit: source-specific evidence is used where the decision needs the market context, not as a matter of routine. The Commercial Maturity Assessment covers the same ten domains and returns an indicative position, and what it cannot do is establish that the account it received is accurate.
- Observed
- Externally observable signals gathered directly rather than reported. Available immediately, and limited to what a commercial system makes visible from the outside.
- Self-reported
- What the organisation reports about itself, captured from the people who run each system. Sufficient for internal planning, and labelled self-reported so that nobody presents it as more than it is.
- Validated CTI evidence
- What supporting material demonstrates once it has been reviewed and tested. This is the class that distinguishes the Full CTI Audit, and it is the reason a finding here holds when somebody outside the business examines it.
- Source-specific
- External market, economic and sector evidence, used to frame a finding in the conditions the organisation is operating in. Used where it is relevant to the decision rather than gathered as a matter of routine.
- What that changes commercially
- A validated result can be used in a diligence process, in front of a board, with a funder or a programme, or as the baseline that later movement is measured against. A self-reported result is a starting point, and the site says so on the route that produces one.
Afterwards
What a validated baseline is worth once the audit is over.
The audit ends with a decision rather than with a relationship. What it leaves behind is a position that later movement can be measured against.
-
Implementation stays with you
The audit establishes what to change and in what order. Most organisations take that to their own team or to a partner already working with them, and the findings do not depend on who delivers the work.
-
Reassessment demonstrates movement
Movement between bands is shown by assessing against the same method and the same evidence standard, rather than asserted from the activity that was delivered in between.
-
The evidence trail keeps its value
What was examined, and what it established, remains usable in board reporting, diligence, funding and investment conversations long after the readout.
Questions and answers
Questions people ask about the Full CTI Audit
What a commercial audit examines, what validation changes, what the organisation receives, and what a programme or an investor can do with the result.
What is a Full CTI Audit?
A Full CTI Audit is the validated commercial audit of a whole commercial system. It assesses all ten Commercial Transformation Index domains against evidence an assessor has reviewed, analyses the relationships between those domains, and returns a validated Commercial Maturity Band and CTI score on a 250 point scale with the priority and order of what should change.
What does a commercial audit examine?
A commercial audit examines the systems through which customer and commercial value is created, converted and grown, rather than the financial record of what those systems produced. In CTI that means ten domains covering ICP, positioning, pricing, website, CRM, marketing, sales, operations, retention and customer success, and automation, and it means the dependencies and handoffs between them.
What are the ten commercial domains a Full CTI Audit covers?
ICP, Positioning, Pricing, Website, CRM, Marketing, Sales, Operations, Retention and Customer Success, and Automation. Nine occupy a position in the commercial system and are assessed both on their own capability and on what they pass to the domains around them. Automation is assessed across the whole system, because it changes what every other domain can do.
How many signals does a Full CTI Audit draw on?
More than 5,000 across the ten domains: observed, derived, contextual and relational. They are evidence inputs rather than scores, and they are unevenly distributed on purpose. Website, CRM and Marketing generate materially more observable evidence than a narrower domain such as Pricing, because commercial systems are not evenly documented.
What does the 250 point scale mean?
250 is the maximum validated Full CTI Audit score. A score locates a commercial system on one consistent scale so that two assessments, or the same organisation at two points in time, can be read against each other. It is a signal of commercial condition rather than a prediction of financial performance, and it is only comparable with another score produced the same way.
What are the Commercial Maturity Bands a Full CTI Audit returns?
Six operating states: Critical, Developing, Emerging, Capable, Advanced and Optimised. A band describes how a commercial system currently operates rather than rating the business. A Full CTI Audit returns a validated band, which is the strongest evidence tier the Commercial Transformation Index produces.
What evidence does a Full CTI Audit review?
Whatever demonstrates how the commercial system actually operates: process documentation, CRM and pipeline records, pricing governance, marketing and sales material, operational records, and customer and retention evidence. Where evidence for a capability does not exist, that is recorded as a finding rather than worked around, because a system that cannot evidence a capability usually cannot manage it either.
What does validation mean in a Full CTI Audit?
Validation means a claim was tested against supporting material before it became a finding. Self-reported evidence establishes what an organisation reports about itself. Validated CTI evidence establishes what the supporting material demonstrates, which is what allows a finding to hold when somebody outside the business examines it.
Who needs to be involved from our side?
The people who actually run each part of the commercial system, and somebody who can authorise access to the supporting material. Leadership involvement matters most at the two ends: agreeing the decision the audit has to inform, and working through the readout. The audit does not require a project team.
How long does a Full CTI Audit take?
Weeks rather than days, because evidence has to be gathered, reviewed and tested across ten domains. The schedule is agreed at the start and depends on the size of the organisation and how much supporting material already exists.
What does the organisation receive?
A validated CTI score and Commercial Maturity Band, a profile across all ten domains, the cross-domain constraint analysis, the evidence trail behind each finding, priority actions with a recommended sequence, an executive readout, and a baseline that later reassessment can be measured against.
Does the Full CTI Audit include implementation?
No. The audit establishes what the evidence supports, what is constraining the system and what to address first. Implementation is a separate decision, and organisations frequently take the sequence to their own team or to a partner already working with them.
How does a Full CTI Audit differ from the Commercial Maturity Assessment?
They cover the same ten domains and are not interchangeable. The Commercial Maturity Assessment combines observed website evidence with what a participant reports, and returns an indicative position in under half an hour. The Full CTI Audit rests on reviewed evidence and returns a validated position with cross-domain constraint analysis and a prioritised sequence.
How does it differ from a website audit?
A website audit reads one domain from the outside. The Free Website Audit and the In-Depth Website Audit examine website, ICP and positioning evidence that is externally observable. A Full CTI Audit examines all ten domains, including the ones no website can show, and the relationships between them.
Can a Full CTI Audit support a transformation programme?
Yes, and sequencing is usually where it earns its place. A validated baseline establishes which constraint has to move first because the others depend on it, and it gives a programme something to demonstrate movement against later rather than reporting activity.
Can a government or publicly funded programme commission CTI across a cohort of organisations?
Yes. One methodology applied across participating organisations produces a comparable commercial baseline, identifies the constraints that recur across the cohort, and supports targeting intervention where it changes something. Reassessment then measures movement, and aggregate reporting describes the cohort rather than any individual participant.
Can investors or acquirers use a Full CTI Audit in diligence?
Yes. Commercial diligence usually examines financial performance and market position. A Full CTI Audit examines whether the commercial system producing that performance is structured to sustain it, and states the evidence behind each finding so the position can be challenged rather than taken on trust.
How is our assessment information handled?
Evidence gathered in a CTI assessment belongs to the organisation that was assessed and is private by default. No individual organisation, result or score is ever published. Contribution to published research is a separate recorded consent, and anything published is an aggregate that has cleared CTI cohort suppression rules.