WIREFRAME · non-functional design mockup · Allocator ODD / IDD — Adversarial Manager Diligence · static illustrative data (Meridian Absolute Return Fund)
Institutional allocator · Manager research · ODD / IDD

Meridian Absolute Return Fund

Proposed US$150.0M allocation · ILPA DDQ 2.0 submission reviewed by DiligenceWorks · adversarial IDD + ODD
16score
Manager-integrity score. DECLINE — operational controls absent / unverifiable.
US$640M
Claimed AUM · 12.8% p.a. since 2022
Six adversarial checks · IDD then ODD · mapped to ILPA DDQ 2.0
Track Record Flag
DDQ §Performance. 12.8% p.a., ~5% down months — internally consistent but not independently verified (no GIPS / administrator). US$150M ticket = ~23% of the fund (capacity).
IDD “looks real”
Valuation Reject
DDQ §Valuation. US$400M structured-credit overlay marked-to-model (Level 3); no third-party administrator strikes NAV.
US$400M self-marked
Custody Reject
DDQ §Operations. No independent qualified custodian; overlay assets held in the manager's / an affiliate's name.
Who holds the assets?
Providers Reject
DDQ §Service Providers. Auditor a two-partner firm affiliated with a principal, no capacity for a US$640M fund; administrator unconfirmed.
Madoff pattern
Compliance Reject
DDQ §Compliance. “No disciplinary history” declared; register shows an undisclosed prior enforcement action; Form ADV inconsistent with the DDQ; adverse media.
Form ADV ≠ DDQ
Documents Reject
DDQ §Legal. Subscription-agreement signatures inconsistent across pages (subscription-line draw); side-letter / MFN term absent from the LPA.
JES pattern
Cards reveal in sequence during the demo. Green = pass · Amber = flag · Red = reject. IDD (Track Record) says the returns look real; every ODD control says no — the Madoff lesson. Each finding is traceable (see audit drawer).
Exception report
CheckFindingClaimedSupportedDeltaSource
Track Record12.8% p.a. since 2022, ~5% down months — internally smooth, but not independently verified; ~23% capacity concentration12.8% p.a.liquid sleeveUS$400MManager NAVs · no admin
ValuationStructured-credit overlay marked-to-model (Level 3); no third-party administrator strikes NAVUS$400M$0US$400MNo administrator
CustodyNo independent qualified custodian; overlay assets in the manager's / an affiliate's nameUS$400M$0US$400MDDQ §Ops · custody confirms
ProvidersAuditor a two-partner affiliate of a principal, no capacity for a US$640M fund; administrator unconfirmed———Audit registry
ComplianceUndisclosed prior enforcement action; Form ADV inconsistent with the DDQ answers; adverse media———Form ADV · reg · adverse-media
DocumentsSubscription-agreement signatures inconsistent across pages (subscription-line draw); side-letter / MFN term absent from LPAUS$150M——Sub-doc · LPA
US$400M of US$640M claimed AUM cannot be independently verified · recommended allocation $0 of US$150M proposedUS$400MDECLINE
Recommended position
US$240M
Verified
US$400M
Unverified
$0
Allocate · of US$150M
Export ODD/IDD memo (PDF) Send to DDQ workflow (Dasseti) — stub Accept / override flags
Audit drawer (on click): Source = fund DDQ §Operations / custody confirms — no independent qualified custodian; the US$400M structured-credit overlay is held in the manager's / an affiliate's name; NAV self-struck (no third-party administrator); auditor a two-partner affiliate. The Madoff question: who actually holds the assets? Recommendation: DECLINE. CONDITION path before any allocation — independent qualified custodian, third-party-struck NAV, a recognised auditor with capacity, clean re-executed subscription docs, and a reconciled Form ADV.
Monitoring consequence: had the allocator committed US$150M and carried the overlay at the manager's mark, that unverifiable US$400M would distort exposure reporting and seed a restated-NAV re-diligence trigger. ODD is no longer a one-time gate — the same catch feeds continuous monitoring. Decision support — not investment advice.
Scope: DW analyses the ILPA DDQ responses your questionnaire workflow (Dasseti) collects — it does not collect questionnaires or run portfolio reporting (Addepar / Eton / Masttro). The same engine your MFO uses on direct deals, pointed at your managers. Integration, not rivalry.

Continuous-monitoring book

US$2.4B
of mandates under continuous monitoring · 18 managers · 4 flagged on operations · 5 re-diligence triggers this cycle (Form ADV change / key-person / leverage drift / administrator change / restated NAV). ~85% of LPs reject a manager on operational concerns alone; 79% deepened operational scrutiny this year.
Bars = re-diligence checks per month · amber = a manager flagged for re-diligence (Form ADV / key-person / leverage / admin / restated NAV).
Anchor — Madoff: IDD said the returns were real; ODD asks who holds the assets. JES Capital: ~US$95M of forged subscription signatures to draw a subscription line. The same two patterns, caught here before allocation — and watched after.
Mockup only — illustrative figures, no live engine. Decision support, not investment advice. DW analyses the DDQ responses your workflow (Dasseti) collects — it does not collect questionnaires or run portfolio reporting. Final figures come from the six-check engine per DESIGN-allocator-odd-idd-manager-diligence-verification.md.