One of the most expensive mistakes I see in acquisitions is starting diligence before properly qualifying the opportunity. Most buyers have a diligence process. Far fewer have a process for deciding whether a deal deserves diligence in the first place. The result: • Time spent on deals that never fit the mandate • QofE and legal costs on opportunities unlikely to close • Senior partners pulled into deals that should have been screened out earlier I've become convinced that sourcing isn't the bottleneck for most acquisition groups. Decision quality is. The strongest deal teams use a consistent framework before committing resources. They standardize how deals are ingested, scored, and routed so senior decision-makers focus only on opportunities that matter. Before traditional diligence begins, I typically look at four areas: 1. Governance risk 2. Incentive alignment 3. Deal architecture 4. Capital relationship risk It's surprising how often one of these reveals a fatal flaw long before a QofE or legal review. For searchers, sponsors, and operators: How much of your deal screening process is documented and repeatable versus living in your head? And how much time and money are you spending on deals that should have been filtered out earlier?