The framework below is a vetting protocol, not a scoring system. It assumes the owner has shortlisted two to four advisors and is preparing to meet each. The goal is to surface what each advisor actually does, how they actually think, and where their incentives actually point, before any commitment is made.

Phase 1: Pre-Meeting Research

Before the first meeting, the owner can already eliminate weak candidates by reviewing what each advisor publishes. Strong advisors leave a public record: working papers, industry articles, podcasts, conference appearances, framework documents. Weak advisors leave only marketing copy.

Phase 2: The First Meeting

The first meeting is a methodology audit. The owner is not buying the advisor's results. They are buying the advisor's process. Strong advisors welcome process questions. Weak advisors deflect them.

Phase 3: The Fee Structure Conversation

The fee structure conversation surfaces alignment. An advisor whose retainer covers preparation work has skin in the game for the preparation phase. An advisor whose entire compensation depends on transaction closure has skin in the game only for closure, which is not the same thing as the best outcome for the owner.

Phase 4: References, Not Logos

Closed-deal logos are easy. Useful references are harder, because they require the advisor to share contact information for owners whose transactions did not go as planned, not just the ones that closed well.

Phase 5: The Sleep-On-It Window

The decision to engage an exit advisor is the highest-stakes professional services hire most owners will make. There is no good reason to make it in the same week the conversation begins. A 7 to 14-day decision window is appropriate.

Phase 6: The Engagement Letter

Engagement letters are negotiable. Owners who treat them as standard documents and sign without modification are leaving alignment value on the table. The piece How to Read an Engagement Letter covers the specific clauses owners should redline and the structural provisions worth asking for.

The framework draws on Cordis Institute Working Paper WP-002, The Buyer Lane Preparation Map, SSRN Abstract 6735844 (DOI 10.2139/ssrn.6735844), and standard practitioner conventions documented across DueDilio, SRS Acquiom, GF Data, and Seyfarth lower-middle-market deal research. It is intentionally framed as a checklist rather than a scoring rubric because the relative weight of each criterion shifts by transaction.