Every team says they have a clear buy box. Then a new deal hits the inbox and someone tweaks the criteria inside the screen or IC memo. Language shifts, thresholds drift, and two similar deals get judged on slightly different terms. The friction is small each time, but it adds up. You lose a clean audit trail of what you said you would do, and it gets harder to explain why one deal passed and another moved forward. Underwriting ~5 min to run Build Investment Mandate Vic prompt Use Vic to capture my allocation mandate for a US industrial and multifamily buy box with $25-75M checks and 15% net IRR target. Purpose Every new opportunity can be measured against the same documented rules without rebuilding criteria each time. A human analyst needs about 45 minutes; this finishes in about 5 minutes. Inputs Mandate Inputs Required Existing Mandate Optional Outputs A structured mandate record with every criterion listed as a testable line tagged must-have or preference and an as-of date Time saved Turns roughly 45 minutes of manual work into about 5 minutes. How it works You give Vic your mandate inputs, or an existing mandate. That can include asset classes, geography, check size, pacing, strategy, target returns, structure, liquidity, sponsor rules, and concentration limits. Vic turns that into a structured record where each criterion is a testable line, tagged as a must-have or a preference, and stamped with an as-of date. Run it with a simple command: "Use Vic to capture my allocation mandate for a US industrial and multifamily buy box with $25-75M checks and 15% net IRR target." You can go detailed or start from a rough sketch. If you provide an existing mandate, Vic standardizes the language and fills gaps so each item can be checked the same way. The output is not a narrative memo. It is a clean list of criteria you can apply to every opportunity. Each line is specific enough to test. Geography is explicit. Check size is bounded. Return targets use the same format across the record. Sponsor rules and concentration limits sit alongside everything else instead of living in someone’s head. This becomes your single reference point. When a deal comes in, you compare it to the mandate line by line. In a screen, you can mark which must-haves are met and where the deal only satisfies preferences. In a commit or pass memo, you cite the same lines, not a rewritten version. The as-of date matters. It shows which rules were in force at the time of the decision. There is a practical benefit. A human analyst will spend about 45 minutes pulling criteria from prior decks, emails, and memory, then formatting it into something usable. Vic does it in about five minutes and keeps the structure consistent each time. The time savings is clear, but the bigger gain is consistency across deals and over time. There is also a discipline angle. Tagging items as must-have or preference forces a call. If everything is a must-have, nothing is. If a deal clears preferences but misses a must-have, that is a real exception that should be documented. The record makes those exceptions visible instead of burying them in prose. Most teams think they have this nailed. In practice, criteria drift. Dates go missing. Two versions of the buy box circulate. This task fixes that with a simple habit: capture the mandate once as testable lines, update it when the IC changes direction, and use the same record everywhere.