Is this name right for the brief?

Two reviewers, 87 candidate names, one question. You will work alone: your ratings stay in this browser and are never shown to the other reviewer. The consensus step happens offline, after both exports are in. Expect 60 to 90 minutes; multiple sittings are fine, your work saves as you go.

Who is reviewing?

Read the Brief and the Protocol first, then scan the field and rate family by family. Do not discuss candidates with the other reviewer until both exports are in.

The brief

The Brief

Read this once, carefully. Every rating you give is a judgment against this brief, not against your taste.

Card 1

What is being named

A holding company: a lean portfolio platform that partners with founder-led home services and trades businesses, pairing capital with hands-on operating support, financial visibility, and a steady planning rhythm. The portfolio companies keep their own names. The holding company’s name appears alongside them as an endorsement.

The endorsement posture is the hardest test in this brief. The name must work in the sentence “Hometown Plumbing Pros, an ___ company” on a truck door, and it must also carry weight on a term sheet, a wire instruction, and a legal filing. Both registers at once. A name that only clears one is not right for this brief.

Card 2

The incumbent

One candidate is already in service: Uncommon Companies, operating publicly since 2023 with a live website and an established domain. It enters this review as one candidate among many, on equal footing with every challenger.

The incumbent gets no head start here and no penalty either. Its time in service is real and will be weighed later, at the decision stage, alongside everything else. Your job now is only to answer whether the name is right for the brief above. Either outcome is a good outcome: a confirmed name that earned its place, or a better name found before the platform scales.

Card 3

Who the name must work for

Five audiences, roughly in order: founders deciding whether to take this partner’s capital and cadence; sellers, brokers, and referral networks in home services; capital, banking, and legal counterparties; the people working inside portfolio companies; and homeowners who see the endorsement line on a truck or an invoice.

The first audience is decisive. A founder weighing this partnership should hear a credible, operator-respecting partner, not a private equity acquirer. The name should make taking the call easier, not harder.

Card 4

Register

Grounded, capital-credible, operator-warm. Comfortable on a term sheet and on a job-site coffee table.

Avoid three failure directions: finance aggression (the Apex, Summit, Vertex tier), fake folksiness, and anything that condescends to the trades. The businesses this platform partners with are practical and proud. The name should sound like it respects that.

Card 5

Where the name must travel

Phoenix metro first. Then possibly Tucson, then possibly Flagstaff, then possibly San Diego metro.

A name that is locked to Arizona by geography or nickname has a runway limit. That limit is not automatically fatal, but it is a real cost, and it should show up in your rationale if you see it.

Card 6

Domains

A .com is preferred, and a modified or longer domain is easily tolerated. Do not check domain availability yourself, and do not let a guess about availability change a rating.

A name killed early on a rumor of unavailability is the most common way good names die. Availability gets checked properly, later, for the names that survive this review. Rate the name, not the URL.

Card 7

One open question

It is deliberately undecided whether this engagement renames the existing entity or names a new platform entity that would stand beside it. Your reviews will help inform that decision.

Do not try to answer the structural question while rating. Rate each name against the brief as written. If a name only makes sense under one structure, say so in the rationale; that is exactly the kind of signal the decision needs.

Card 8

What happens next

Both reviewers complete their reviews independently and export them. The exports are combined offline into a shortlist. Surviving names then get deeper evaluation: usability, meaning, availability screening, and a final decision.

Nothing you rate here is final. A “Right for the brief” verdict advances a name into harder testing; it does not adopt it. A “Not right” verdict with a clear rationale is just as valuable as an endorsement.

The protocol

The Protocol

Six rules. They exist so two independent reviews stay independent and comparable.

Rule 1

Review alone

Complete your entire review before discussing any candidate with the other reviewer. No comparing notes, no floating favorites, no “what did you think of...” until both exports are in.

The value of two reviews is two independent judgments. The moment one reviewer hears the other’s reaction, the second review is an echo. The site keeps your ratings private to your browser; keep the conversation private too, until the end.

Rule 2

Fit, not affection

The question on every card is “is this name right for the brief?” It is never “do you like it?”

You will like names that are wrong for the brief and dislike names that are right for it. That gap is normal and it is exactly what the rationale box is for. When you notice you are rating on taste, reread the brief card on register and audiences, then rate again.

Rule 3

The verdicts

Three options per name. “Right for the brief”: this name could carry the company as described. “Could be right”: real potential, with a reservation you can name. “Not right”: a clear miss against the brief, for a reason you can state.

Be stingy with the top verdict. A field this size should produce a short list, not a long one. If you find yourself with twenty names in the top verdict, your bar is set on interesting, not on right.

Rule 4

Rationale is the deliverable

The two advancing verdicts require a written reason. One or two sentences. Name the strength or the reservation specifically.

“Strong” is not a rationale. “Sounds like a partner a plumbing founder would trust, and survives the truck door test” is. The offline consensus step works entirely from your written reasons, so a verdict without a reason is half a vote.

Rule 5

Do not screen names yourself

Do not look up domains, trademarks, or competitors while reviewing. Rate every name as if it were available.

A name killed early on a rumor of unavailability is the most common way good names die. Some candidate notes mention possible name collisions; treat those as context for your judgment, not as homework. Formal screening happens later, only for survivors, done properly.

Rule 6

The truck door read

Before rating each name, say it once in this sentence: “Hometown Plumbing Pros, an ___ company.” Then picture it on a term sheet header.

This is the brief’s hardest requirement made mechanical. Some names will feel strong alone and collapse in the endorsement sentence. Some quiet names will surprise you there. The sentence test catches both.

Mechanics

Mechanics and time

87 names. Expect 60 to 90 minutes; multiple sittings are fine, your progress saves automatically in this browser. When done, use Export and send the text block to Eric.

Review in any order; families are collapsible. The export flags anything unrated and any advancing verdict missing its rationale, so you can close gaps before sending. Do not discuss until both exports are in.

The Candidates

87 names in eleven families, plus one name already in service and two wildcards. Families are strategies, not rankings.

Scan the whole field before you rate anything. The one-line strategy under each family is all the framing there is; the rest is your read against the brief. Click a family to start there, or begin at the top.