AQ Score & Data Trust Methodology

The AQ Score™ is AltQ's proprietary, standardized research assessment of a fund. It helps a reader distinguish (i) what a fund has demonstrated in the available record and (ii) what AltQ's research concludes about its unrealized portfolio and forward-looking potential. It is a fund-level research opinion, not personalized investment advice.

The published grade combines a letter component for forward potential and a numeric component for realized proof, as described in AltQ's public product materials. The relative meaning of each published category, any qualifiers, and cases where a score cannot be issued must be read with the score legend displayed alongside the report. The AQ Score™ scale is AltQ's own and does not correspond to the rating scales used by credit rating agencies. A CC grade means the evidence available to AltQ does not yet meet the minimum required for a full assessment. It is not a judgment that the fund is of low quality and does not indicate financial distress, credit quality or default risk. An AQ Score is not a forecast of a specific return, a credit rating, a recommendation, an assessment of suitability, or a guarantee of liquidity or capital preservation.

Data Trust is separate from AQ Score. It communicates how complete, current, verifiable and source-supported the evidence is. Stronger supporting disclosure is not the same as a stronger investment outcome; a fund may have a favorable AQ Score and weaker Data Trust, or vice versa.

AltQ researches private-market and semi-liquid investment vehicles, including eligible interval funds and tender-offer funds, subject to its coverage scope and sufficient available information. Fund identity, legal vehicle, strategy, share class and reporting period are established before substantive comparisons are made. Where a fund's legal structure changes over time, historical and current facts may need different descriptions.

Selection for coverage can reflect data availability, comparability, investor relevance, fund size, market coverage plans and editorial research priorities. Coverage does not imply a favorable view, sponsorship, regulatory approval or endorsement. Some funds may be excluded, unrated, or shown with restricted evidence because the source record is inadequate or insufficiently comparable.

AltQ uses a structured and gated workflow intended to produce comparable assessments across covered funds:

Technology may be used to ingest filings, extract facts, normalize source records, perform deterministic calculations and assist with analytical writing. Automated extraction and AI-assisted analysis can make mistakes. A human-review claim must describe the actual documented level of review; such review is not an audit or warranty of accuracy.

Proof: what the fund has demonstrated

Proof focuses on the historical record rather than a manager's projections. Depending on available evidence, it may consider performance, net asset development, realized proceeds, distributions, financial results, persistence of reported outcomes and the quality of their documentation. Changes in reporting periods and class-level fee arrangements can materially affect comparability.

Prospects: what remains exposed to future outcomes

Prospects examines the unrealized portfolio and the uncertainties around it, including investment composition, valuation dependence, concentration, leverage, liquidity obligations, manager execution and governance. An inference about a private portfolio is identified as an inference rather than represented as an observed holding or independently verified NAV.

Pulse: relevant public-market context

Pulse provides outside market evidence and comparisons that may help assess a fund's exposure to changing conditions. Public-market movements do not mechanically determine private-fund NAV. Public comparators can differ in leverage, liquidity, valuation timing, security selection, capital structure and fees. Findings may therefore be directional rather than predictive.

Interval and tender-offer structures often require analysis beyond traditional mutual-fund metrics. Areas that may influence the AltQ research include:

• Actual liquidity rights: interval repurchase rules or discretionary tender offers, caps, frequency, notice periods, proration and the possibility of suspension or modification;
• Asset/liability alignment: comparison of underlying asset liquidity with potential repurchase obligations and available cash or credit facilities;
• Fee economics: management, incentive, servicing, financing, acquired-fund and other costs, including waivers and differences between stated expense totals and economic costs;
• Valuation and mark timing: use of estimates, Level 3 holdings, stale observations, reported value versus comparable current-market movements;
• Conflicts and governance: related-party investments or services, allocation, fee layers, valuation oversight and changes in disclosures;
• Quality of performance evidence: net versus gross performance, class differences, capital-flow effects and comparisons to liquid benchmarks.

A favorable research assessment does not negate redemption restrictions, stale marks or other investment risks.

Data Trust is an evidence-quality indicator. It is designed to make clear whether AltQ could establish a sufficiently supported factual basis for the published research. Relevant considerations may include original-source traceability, completeness across reporting periods, corroboration of facts, currency of available filings, transparency of holdings and valuation information, and unresolved contradictions.

AltQ uses a color-based Data Trust scale. Each published color must be accompanied by a plain-language definition in the active platform legend and an explanation of any material evidence restrictions. Data Trust is not an audit opinion, assurance attestation, regulator finding or claim that every underlying fact has been independently verified.

Research is limited by what is available. When source records do not support a metric, AltQ may omit it, publish it as unavailable, qualify the observation, reduce its confidence, or defer a rating. A dash or blank should not automatically be read as zero. Estimates, inferred exposures and comparisons should be labeled differently from facts extracted directly from source documents.

Metrics must be considered together with the applicable fund/share class, calculation basis, source and as-of date. Values from different filings or time windows may not be directly comparable. Report users should review source notes and fund-level qualifications rather than treating a single grade as an exhaustive conclusion.

The AQ Score and supporting analysis may change when new filings, corrected source records, methodology revisions or material facts warrant re-evaluation. A later rating is not proof that the earlier rating was negligent or that a particular return will follow. Historical scores should retain an effective date and methodology version for comparison.

Peer groups and reference indexes are analytical choices, not guarantees of comparable legal structures, strategies, returns or liquidity. AltQ may limit or qualify comparisons when a defensible peer set is unavailable. No ranking should be presented as universal across materially different funds.

AltQ publishes material methodology changes with an effective date and a brief explanation of their nature. Proprietary coefficients, weighting rules, score boundaries and internal anti-manipulation controls may remain confidential; withholding these does not alter the obligation to accurately explain what the published score measures and what it does not.

Scores should be derived through the research process, not determined by whether an issuer purchases services or receives favorable coverage. AltQ's Editorial Independence & Conflicts Policy explains the intended separation between commercial relationships and research judgments. Readers may submit documented factual corrections to info@altq.ai. A correction request does not give an issuer approval or veto power over analysis.

Important: AQ Score and Data Trust are proprietary research assessments, not personalized investment advice, NRSRO credit ratings, SEC-approved certifications, guarantees of investment outcomes, or substitutes for reading current fund offering and reporting documents.

Read the Regulatory Status and Research Disclosures & Risk Limitations before relying on any report.