A decision-support framework that combines impact, performance, fiduciary risk, governance, and compliance into one coherent architecture — designed for investors and trustees operating in complex markets.
In high-variance environments, the primary failure mode is rarely ambition. It is loss of decision coherence: fragmented reporting, unclear accountability, implicit trade-offs, and controls introduced too late.
This methodology is designed to make investment decisions auditable, stress-tested, and monitorable from the outset, while remaining configurable to the purpose and risk tolerance of the investor.
It is not impact storytelling. It is a fiduciary control framework designed to withstand board review, regulatory scrutiny, and adversarial challenge.
✓ One composite score (NGI) to compare opportunities
✓ One evidence file documenting assumptions, controls, and decisions
✓ One monitoring loop linking design to oversight
Scoring is decision-oriented and defensible. It exists to surface risks early, force explicit trade-offs, and support accountable capital allocation decisions.
Scores rely on documented structures, demonstrated practices, and verifiable data. Statements of intent do not justify scores above 3 unless already operational.
Where evidence is incomplete or uncertain, scores are adjusted downward. Uncertainty is treated as fiduciary risk.
Strong elements do not compensate for critical weaknesses within the same criterion.
Overrides require explicit justification, documented rationale, and identified approval authority.
Each pillar is assessed using a structured rubric. Pillar scores are weighted to reflect investor intent and operating context, producing a composite view that structures — but does not replace — judgment.
Clarity of objectives, theory of change, measurability, and durability of outcomes.
Operational delivery capacity, economic logic, and resilience to shocks.
Downside exposure, capital traceability, contingencies, and loss-bearing clarity.
Decision rights, accountability, escalation paths, and oversight effectiveness.
AML, sanctions, audit trail, transparency, and jurisdictional exposure control.
The Naxus Integrated Governance Methodology is implemented through a decision system designed to translate governance principles into explicit, auditable outcomes.
Rather than presenting abstract scores or narrative assessments, the methodology is operationalised through a structured evaluation process that makes trade-offs visible, enforces minimum safeguards, and produces a clear, defensible decision outcome.
This decision system is embodied in the Naxus Governance Index (NGI) dashboard.
The NGI dashboard provides a decision-grade view of an assessment at a given point in time. It illustrates:
The dashboard is designed to support Investment Committee deliberation, not to replace it.
Its purpose is to make assumptions explicit, surface weaknesses early, and ensure that decisions remain consistent, traceable, and defensible.
Illustrative NGI Dashboard (annotated)
Example of how governance logic and decision rules are reflected in a decision-grade view.
The NGI dashboard reflects the methodology’s core governance logic:
Where conditions are imposed, they refer to mandatory and time-bound governance, control, or compliance measures. Strong performance in some areas can never compensate for structural weaknesses in others.
The NGI dashboard is not the methodology itself. It is one implementation of the methodology within a broader decision system.
Excel is currently used internally because it enforces scoring discipline, preserves an auditable record, and allows transparent review of assumptions. It is an implementation layer — not the standard itself.
The NGI scorecard and dashboard are made available for due-diligence purposes, pilot use with clients, or within advisory mandates.
Access is provided on request, together with appropriate guidance on interpretation and use, ensuring that the methodology is applied within a governance framework rather than as a standalone scoring exercise.
Request access to the NGI scorecard
Each NGI assessment produces a structured governance record. Over time, these records form a growing body of comparable cases.
This supports consistency checks across assessments, detection of scoring drift, benchmarking across contexts and client profiles, and continuous improvement of governance practice.
The methodology and decision system are designed to support a future transition from individual assessments to a structured assessment database, and eventually to AI-assisted harmonisation and quality control — without delegating judgment to automation.
The NGI decision system exists to ensure that governance decisions remain explicit, consistent, and accountable — even as complexity, scale, and scrutiny increase.