Score every investee in a portfolio on the IMP Five Dimensions — What, Who, How Much, Contribution, Risk — rate the evidence behind each, flag a thin 'Who', and grade the result green, amber, or red.
In short: The Five Dimensions of Impact only work when you score the evidence behind each one, not just assign a label. Rate What, Who, How Much, Contribution, and Risk on a 1–5 evidence scale, flag any investee whose 'Who' is thin, and grade the portfolio green, amber, or red so weak evidence can't hide behind a tidy classification.
Work in the portfolio you already manage. This walkthrough runs over DEMO-06 · Funder Portfolio — an impact fund with several investees, clean records, and persistent contact IDs. Load your Decision Brief first so the assistant scores against your evidence standard, not a generic one.
You are the Sopact Sense Assistant working over the DEMO-06 · Funder Portfolio dataset (clean data + persistent contact IDs). Load my Decision Brief (decision, audience, outcomes, indicators, evidence standard) first, then wait for my task.
The prompt classifies each investee and rates how well the evidence supports it.
Classify each investee in [PORTFOLIO] on IMP Five Dimensions (What/Who/How Much/Contribution/Risk); score evidence 1-5; assign impact class; flag thin 'Who'. Grade green/amber/red.
Five elements make it trustworthy: the dataset of investees, the five dimensions applied to each, the evidence quality scored 1–5 rather than assumed, the instruction to flag thin 'Who' where the people reached aren't well characterised, and the grade G/A/R that rolls it up.
Run on the Funder Portfolio dataset (DEMO 06) already loaded in Sopact Sense.
GRADE: green | What | outcome measured and sourced; amber | Risk | rated from self-report only; red | Who | thin depth on underservedness
The grade exposes where the classification is soft. Green means the dimension is well evidenced — the What is measured and sourced. Amber means it leans on a single weak source — Risk is rated from the investee's own account with no triangulation. Red means the dimension is thin — the 'Who' names stakeholders but never establishes how underserved they are, which is the whole point of the dimension.
Fix the lowest-graded dimension with the smallest realistic change.
Take the lowest-graded element above and fix it using only what the program could realistically measure. Show the before → after grade and the single indicator/edit that moves it to green.
Produce a branded "missing & incomplete" report and a link your investment committee can open.
Create a 'missing & incomplete' report from this analysis in Sopact branding [or paste your website URL / brand guideline to apply your own]. List every element graded amber or red, what is missing, and the one input that fixes each. Lead with the decision this report informs.
Create a shareable link for this report and open it in a new tab.
'Who' carries the weight. The Five Dimensions are only as strong as your 'Who' evidence — how underserved the people reached actually are. If that's thin, the impact class is unsupported no matter how good the other four look.
Score evidence, not intent. A 1–5 evidence rating stops a compelling narrative from earning a high classification it hasn't earned with data.
Watch self-reported Risk. Risk rated only from the investee's own account is amber by default. Triangulate it with an independent source before you trust it.
Re-score after a fix. Add the one missing measure, then re-run so the dimension's grade actually moves.
Re-score only the dimensions I changed and show the before → after evidence rating for each investee.
The Impact Management Project's Five Dimensions are What (the outcome and how important it is), Who (which stakeholders experience it and how underserved they are), How Much (scale, depth, and duration), Contribution (whether the impact is better than what would have happened anyway), and Risk (the chance impact differs from expectations). Together they let a funder classify any investment on a common framework.
Who establishes whether you are reaching genuinely underserved people or simply easy-to-reach ones. Without depth on underservedness, the rest of the dimensions can look strong while the impact is shallow. That's why a thin 'Who' should be flagged red even when What and How Much are well measured.
Use a simple 1–5 scale per dimension based on the strength and independence of the underlying data — 5 for measured, sourced, triangulated evidence; 1 for an unsupported claim. Scoring evidence separately from the classification keeps a persuasive story from inflating the grade.
Open Sopact Sense, paste your program description, and put it to work.
Try in Sopact
