Anonymous Aggregate (n=50)

Portfolio Diagnostic


Generated: 2026-04-08
How to read this report

This is a structural diagnostic — it shows what your portfolio looks like when you assemble public data sources that don’t otherwise see each other.

Strategic Overview frames who this organization is, where it operates, and the headline findings.
Portfolio Complexity Score measures structural complexity on a 0–100 scale with peer comparison.
Structural Conflict Map shows where obligations overlap in time, type, or funding source.
Diagnostic Notes flag priority observations about portfolio structure.
Timeline & Financial sections show what is due soon and how funding is distributed.
Further Detail sections provide ecological context, historical patterns, and the full obligation ledger.

Every number shown here is derived from public federal and state records. Data boundaries are documented throughout.

This composite represents the median portfolio characteristics across 50 entities. Use this as a benchmark baseline for individual Tetrapod comparison. Median PCSPortfolio Complexity Score · 14-factor composite metric: 48.4 (MODERATE), IQR 40.23–61.07. Median active portfolio: $9,261,548, median revenue: $1,128,890. Median conflict count: 3.0 per entity.Methodology: Restoration Portfolio Analysis (RPAFRestoration Portfolio Alignment Framework). All values are population medians; no individual entity data is disclosed.

Portfolio Complexity Score

Moderate complexity, driven primarily by portfolio scale

ℹ What am I looking at?
PCS Score (0–100)
A composite measure across 10 weighted factors. Higher scores indicate a more complex portfolio to manage. Tier thresholds: MINIMAL (0–19), LOW (20–44), MODERATE (45–74), HIGH (75–100).
Total Portfolio Value
The sum of all active obligation award amounts. This is the dollar baseline the complexity score is measured against.
Weighted Contribution
Each factor’s raw value is normalized to a 0–10 scale, then multiplied by its configured weight. The bar chart shows each factor’s share of the total PCS score.
Normalization Methods
Factors use three normalization methods: logarithmic scaling (compresses large values — the 15th obligation adds less complexity than the 3rd), linear scaling (direct proportion to a sector-calibrated maximum), and bell-curve scaling (balanced ratios score highest; extremes in either direction score lowest).
→ See the full PCS Factor Guide for all 10 factors
This portfolio is rated MODERATEℹPCS score range: 45–74. The score is a weighted composite of 10 portfolio factors.. The portfolio is significantly complex. Diverse funding sources, overlapping timelines, and multiple compliance frameworks require strong administrative capacity. Common for active organizations — manageable with adequate staffing and systems. The primary complexity driverℹThe factor with the highest weighted contribution to the overall PCS score. is Total Portfolio Value — the combined dollar value of all obligations in the portfolio. The primary drivers fall in the Portfolio Scale category, contributing 57% of the total score.Is the portfolio size driven by a few large awards, or many mid-sized obligations? The management implications differ significantly.

Structural Conflict Map

Median 3 conflicts per entity — 48 of 50 entities have structural conflicts

Identifies where obligations interact: timing overlaps, match burden, and geographic concentration.

ℹ What am I looking at?
Timeline Bars
Each bar represents one obligation. Solid color means confirmed start/end dates; faded bars indicate estimated or inferred dates (e.g., from biennium codes).
Conflict Detection
The engine checks for: timeline overlaps between obligations, end-date clusters (multiple obligations ending at the same time), match burden pressure, concurrent restoration activity, and cross-source overlap (potential double-counting between data sources).
→ See the Conflict Type Guide for details on each conflict type
No conflicts detected in this portfolio.
3.0
median conflicts / entity
48
of 50 entities have conflicts
IQR: 2.0–5.0  ·  Range: 0–10
Median severity distribution
● Info: 2.0● Warning: 1.0● Critical: 0.0

Diagnostic Notes

medium
Funder Concentration
Applies to 48 of 50 entities (96% of population).
Population frequency: 48/50
medium
Timeline Density
Applies to 42 of 50 entities (84% of population).
Population frequency: 42/50
medium
Structural Overlap
Applies to 27 of 50 entities (54% of population).
Population frequency: 27/50
medium
Match Burden
Applies to 20 of 50 entities (40% of population).
Population frequency: 20/50
medium
Match Burden
Applies to 17 of 50 entities (34% of population).
Population frequency: 17/50
Timeline Pressure666 reporting deadlines converge between 2026-04-15 and 2026-05-15

Timeline Pressure

68
Ending in 3 months
124
Ending 3-6 months
104
Ending 6-12 months
Deadline Convergence: 666 deadlines between 2026-04-15 and 2026-05-15
Obligation 1, Obligation 2, Obligation 3, Obligation 4 (+662 more)
Deadline Convergence: 663 deadlines between 2026-04-25 and 2026-05-18
Obligation 1, Obligation 2, Obligation 3, Obligation 4 (+659 more)
Deadline Convergence: 663 deadlines between 2026-04-29 and 2026-05-27
Obligation 1, Obligation 2, Obligation 3, Obligation 4 (+659 more)
DateTypeObligation Amount Days
2026-04-15 Annual Progress — 7d
2026-04-15 Annual Progress — 7d
2026-04-15 Annual Progress — 7d
2026-04-15 Annual Progress — 7d
2026-04-15 Annual Progress — 7d
2026-04-25 Annual Progress — 17d
2026-04-29 Quarterly Report — 21d
2026-04-29 Quarterly Report — 21d
2026-04-29 Quarterly Report — 21d
2026-04-29 Quarterly Report — 21d
2026-04-30 End Date $9,665,081 22d
2026-04-30 End Date $66,602 22d
2026-04-30 End Date $49,896 22d
2026-04-30 End Date $188,306 22d
2026-04-30 End Date $110,073 22d
Financial Profile
ℹ What am I looking at?
Annual Revenue
From the most recent IRS 990 filing via ProPublica. This figure may lag 1–2 years behind the current date.
Total Portfolio
Sum of all obligation award amounts (active and closed) across all data sources. The PCS score uses only active obligations.
Match Commitment
The organization’s required cost-share (matching funds) across all obligations that report match data. If match data is incomplete, this is a lower bound.
Portfolio/Revenue Ratio
Total portfolio ÷ annual revenue. Shows how leveraged the portfolio is relative to the organization’s operating capacity. A ratio of 2.0x means the organization manages $2 in obligations for every $1 of revenue.
Funder Concentration
Measures how dependent the portfolio is on a single funding source, using the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHIHerfindahl-Hirschman Index · DOJ/FTC concentration measure). The percentage shown is the top funder’s share of the total portfolio. LOW (<25%) = diversified funding base. MODERATE (25–50%) = some concentration risk. HIGH (>50%) = heavily reliant on one funder.
This organization manages $1.32 in obligations for every $1.00 of revenueℹPortfolio∕Revenue ratio: total portfolio value (all obligations) ÷ annual revenue from the most recent IRS 990 filing. (1.3x ratio). The portfolio moderately exceeds revenue — common for active organizations. Match commitmentsℹThe organization’s required cost-share (matching funds) across obligations that report match data. total $4,350,570, representing 18% of the portfolio.
~19.0estimated reports/year — 0 federal, 0 state
Landscape
Further Detail
Ecological Context

Enrichment Detail

Supplementary analysis from specialized data sources

Hindsight — Federal Audit Correlation

Retrospective Risk Patterns

Population-wide portfolio characteristics in years preceding audit findings vs. clean years

35Entities with audit data
20With findings
45Pre-finding entity-years
266Clean entity-years
Metric Pre-Finding Median Clean Median Difference n (pre/clean)
Portfolio Complexity Score36.138.7-6.7%45/266
Active Obligations17.014.0+21.4%45/266
Portfolio Value$5,319,002$6,513,571-18.3%45/266
Match Burden Ratio0.040.14-73.7%45/266
Portfolio-to-Revenue Ratio0.000.35—45/266
Funder Concentration (HHI)3,7263,405+9.4%45/266
Across 35 entities with outcome data, 1 of 6 portfolio metrics were elevated in the 2 years preceding findings. Most notable: Active Obligations.
NEP Atlas — Estuary Program Activities

NEP Activity Portfolio (Population)

National Estuary Program activities across the population, from the Puget Sound Partnership NEPNational Estuary Program · EPA Atlas.

34 Entities with NEP Data
405 Total Activities
$133,748,229 Total NEP Funding
81.2% Burn Rate

Activity Stages: Completed: 354 · Implementation: 51

Linked Vital Signs: Air Quality Beaches and Marine Vegetation Birds Cultural Wellbeing Drinking Water Economic Vitality Estuaries Forage Fish Forests and Wetlands Freshwater Good Governance Groundfish and Benthic Invertebrates Local Foods Marine Water Orcas Outdoor Activity Salmon Sense of Place Shellfish Beds Sound Stewardship Streams and Floodplains Toxics in Aquatic Life Zooplankton
Historical Patterns
ℹ What am I looking at?
PCS Trend Line
The Portfolio Complexity Score recalculated at each historical snapshot, showing how complexity has changed over time.
Tier Zones
Colored horizontal bands showing which score range maps to each complexity tier (Minimal, Low, Moderate, High).
Obligation Count
The dotted line tracks how many obligations were active at each snapshot point, providing context for score changes.
Portfolio Ledger
Data Transparency & Methodology
Data 0/5:— BMF — Grants.gov — FAC — NEP Atlas — RCO