What decision should this context force?
In the supporting record ties back to economics models, governing documents, capital accounts, distribution schedules, fee calculations, and investor disclosures., the Promote Catch-Up Leakage question should resolve whether an approval, funding step, allocation, investor communication, closing item, reporting number, or post-close operating action needs to change. If it does not change a decision, it belongs as background support rather than a control point.
Promote Catch-Up Leakage glossary definition →What evidence should be linked before the item is marked complete?
The useful evidence set is waterfall model tabs, capital account records, distribution notices, approval history, and true-up support. The page should not just say the work happened; it should point to the record that lets another reviewer reproduce the answer.
Related: Fee Leakage →Who owns approval, notice, or escalation?
Ownership should be explicit across the sponsor, administrator, tax preparer, investors, and the person approving distribution calculations. A sponsor-quality workflow names who prepares the answer, who approves it, who gets notified, and who handles exceptions.
Related: Carry Leakage →What breaks if this is handled loosely?
The practical risk is that the model can produce a payout that does not match the documents, creating investor disputes or a later clawback problem. That is why this page treats the context as an article path instead of a passive bullet point.
Back to operating term →