Most diagnostics ask you to trust the score. Ours hands you the source. Every Fulcrum finding carries five things: the exact figure, computed from your data; the statement and line item it was read from; the named metric it failed; the threshold it failed against; and the research or methodology that set that threshold. Any finding can be reconstructed and checked independently — by your CFO, your board, or a Quality-of-Earnings firm.
Decision architecture, execution infrastructure, financial discipline, growth sustainability.
Self-awareness, adaptive capacity, role clarity, the founder-to-CEO transition.
Cognitive capacity, energy management, recovery architecture — measured, because depletion predicts performance degradation before results show it.
Strategic alignment, succession thinking, institutional continuity.
The premise is in the name: equilibrium. A company can survive weakness in one pillar. What it cannot survive is the compounding interaction of weaknesses across pillars — which is precisely what single-domain tools never see, because they only measure one.
Decision velocity and calendar architecture — anchored in Bain’s decision-effectiveness research (Blenko, Mankins, Rogers) linking how well and how fast organizations decide with how they perform, and Goldsmith’s calendar-audit discipline.
Concentration, recurring revenue, working-capital absorption, and the Treadmill Ratio — the Damodaran- and Warrillow-anchored read of how durable the revenue actually is.
Warrillow’s hub-and-spoke research plus Goldsmith’s letting-go capacity: structural dependency and behavioral dependency, scored separately, because they’re fixed differently.
EVRI™, informed by Carucci’s research on executive performance and derailment — with optional wearable-data integration for leaders who opt in.
Stated culture versus lived culture, single-respondent and multi-respondent, with the gap itself as the diagnostic.
Scorecard discipline in the tradition of Smart’s Who, bench depth, and the cost model of hiring failure.
Per-role fragility with role-type and relationship-capital scored separately — because a title transfers in a day and a relationship doesn’t.
If a competing diagnostic at this band — OHI, Value Builder, EOS, a CEPA workup — would surface the same finding, it doesn’t lead our report.
Every score states what it predicts over the next 12–24 months, and names the research or dataset behind the claim.
“I already knew that” is our definition of failure. The deliverable’s job is the finding you couldn’t have seen — because it lived across systems that don’t talk to each other.
Fulcrum products use deliberately separate scales — the EQI™ composite, CAM’s 1–5 capital-readiness rubrics, the AI audit’s 1–5 maturity scale, the Fragility Diagnostic’s per-dimension reads. They are different constructs and are never averaged together. Where fragility is concerned, we never publish a composite at all: fragility is a minimum function, not a mean — a company is as fragile as its worst exposure, and averaging destroys exactly the signal you paid to see.