You open a term sheet and know the answer sits in the waterfall. What do you earn after fees, promotes, and timing quirks. You can model it, but it takes time, and the result is easy to second guess. Then there is alignment. Co invest, offsets, crystallization, clawbacks, governance rights. Each one matters, and none of them live in one place. You end up toggling between documents and a spreadsheet, trying to hold the full picture in your head. Underwriting ~15 min to run Evaluate LP Deal Terms and Alignment Vic prompt Use Vic to evaluate the structure and terms of this fund LPA for me as the LP. Purpose LPs reach clearer term decisions without spending two hours on manual modeling and cross-checks. The 15-minute run leaves more time to compare multiple funds or prepare for actual negotiations. Inputs Deal Terms Required Return Assumptions Optional Output Format Optional Outputs A terms and alignment assessment that shows LP net economics under the waterfall, all-in fee drag, alignment features, governance inventory with gaps, liquidity notes, and a ranked list of negotiation points. Time saved Turns roughly two hours of manual work into about 15 minutes. How it works Give Vic the deal terms from the term sheet or LPA. You can pass return assumptions if you have a house view, or let the task run on the base case in the document. If you care about format, specify it. Otherwise you get a standard output that is easy to read and compare across funds. Run it with: "Use Vic to evaluate the structure and terms of this fund LPA for me as the LP." The task models the LP’s net position through the waterfall under base, downside, and upside scenarios. It turns the legal language into cash flows and return metrics so you can see what you keep after the promote and how timing affects distributions. It also totals the full fee load and shows how fees drag on returns across scenarios. From there it moves to alignment. Vic reviews GP co invest, fee offsets, crystallization mechanics, and clawback provisions. These are where a clean headline return can shift once you read the fine print. The output calls out what is present, how it works, and where it conflicts with LP interests. You also get a governance inventory with gaps flagged. Voting rights, removal provisions, key person triggers, reporting. If something standard is missing or thin, it is called out plainly. Liquidity notes are included where terms affect when and how you get capital back. The final section is what you take into the meeting. A ranked list of negotiation points, ordered by impact and ease of change. It is not a brain dump. It is a short, practical set of asks tied to the economics and the alignment review. The value is clarity and speed. Instead of building a one off model and checking it twice, you get a consistent read of LP net economics and the real cost of fees. Because it runs in about 15 minutes, you can line up multiple funds and compare them on the same basis, or use the time to tighten your position before a call. There is also a discipline benefit. The task keeps the conversation on what matters: net to LP, fee load, and alignment. If a manager pushes on a point, you can point to the modeled impact and the clause driving it. That keeps the discussion grounded and makes concessions easier to judge. Most teams have a version of this in a spreadsheet and a checklist. It works, but it is slow and inconsistent across deals. This task standardizes the output and removes easy to miss details, so you can focus on judgment and negotiation.