Every fund report is read by two minds in the same head. System 1 judges the shape in a second. System 2 audits the numbers afterward. The partner glances; the analyst checks. Most charts serve one and fail the other. 🧵

The usual fix — simple chart, detail in an appendix nobody opens — splits the difference. Wrong instinct. The two systems aren't a slider. Serve both fully, in two layers of one picture, and make the readings agree.

Five things a trained eye reads off a fund's TVPI Spectrum in ten seconds. Once you know them, a chart that used to take a spreadsheet and twenty minutes takes a glance. 🧵

Read 3 is the one that changes the ranking. Width = capital. A 12× on a €3M check is a thin spike; a 1.8× on €40M is a wide block that actually moves the fund. Same TVPI headline, very different fund.

Two charts. The same six numbers. One you read in a second — one you can't read at all. The difference is perception. 🧵

None of it is decoration. Every choice lowers the cost of the first glance — so the fast read lands on the truth, and the analyst is free to audit the math instead of decoding the chart. A chart that has to be explained has already failed. Which choice would you argue with? Reply below — and follow if you want the rest of the series.

A 3× on €1M and a 3× on €40M are the same number. They are not the same event. One returned €2M; the other €80M. Here is the charting problem hiding in a lot of fund reporting. 🧵

Now split each bar into realized cash (dark) and unrealized mark (light). Alpha's 12× is almost entirely paper. Beta's 1.6× is mostly banked cash. This is the venture power law shown honestly — the headline winner is a mark until it exits. No single-row chart can show it.