Write up the idea, attach the deck, and get it taken apart the way an investment professional actually reviews it. Not a live conversation - a document where every conclusion traces back to a source.
Where the standard comes from
The judgment standards used in TIPS evaluation and in real VC investment screening, plus the memo discipline top VC firms use to write an investment memo - encoded directly into the engine. It talks the way a reviewer talks internally, not the way a pitch coach talks to a founder.
What actually gets filtered out in the room. The official announcement and operating guidelines are pinned by version and effective date.
How screening memos and IC materials are actually used, and which sentences collapse first once due diligence starts.
Grade every claim, and separate what the company says from what has been verified - down to the grammar of the sentence.
What you get
Submitting does not open a chat. It produces a report. These three panels are what sits on the first page.
Retention looks real, but the expansion logic stands on claims with no contract behind them.
What would flip this call
GO does not mean “invest.” It means “on the current materials, this is worth advancing to due diligence.”
Gates come before the score. Even with a high total, a mandate mismatch, a material numeric contradiction, or a statutory block means no GO. Every verdict carries a confidence level and an evidence-coverage figure.
Each axis gets a 1-5 score, the reasoning, and the level expected at this stage. Where the materials say nothing, no score is invented - the report states what would be needed to score it.
Evidence grade distribution
Document parse coverage 82%
Every claim is graded, then counted separately as company-supplied, verified, inferred, missing, or contradicted. That distribution is the ceiling on how confident the verdict is allowed to be.
Market, competition, customer, product and tech, traction and GTM, business model, team, upside, risk. Each section ends with the challenge questions the founder has to answer.
Whether the raise connects to the cash needed to reach the next milestone. Where the materials fall short, no number is invented - the report states what it would take to set one.
Five gating questions that have to resolve first, the evidence request list, and a 30/60/90-day validation plan.
Keep, cut, add, reorder - plus slide-level notes and a recommended story arc.
How it works
All you need is the idea. Materials make it sharper; without them the review still runs.
A structured intake asks what the business does, what stage you are at, and what you actually want challenged. That alone is enough to start.
Deck, business plan, and financials as PDF, PPTX, or DOCX. Everything is read page by page and slide by slide so citations keep their coordinates. Image-only slides aren't skipped - pages that can't be read as text are read straight from the original as images.
It is generated in the background, so you can close the tab. When it lands, the verdict, scorecard, deep dive, diligence plan, and improvement plan are all one document.
What it catches
Real deduction items, in plain language. Most of them trigger on sentence structure and number lineage alone - regardless of how polished the deck is.
A ten-billion-dollar market with no source, and no line showing which slice you can actually sell into.
A comparison table stacked with beatable names, while whatever the customer uses today is missing from it.
One person's frustration scaled up to a whole market with no validation. If it never says who was asked and how, this fires.
Gross transaction value and net revenue used interchangeably. Without a net take-rate figure, unit economics cannot be computed at all.
Nothing on what could go wrong, or what result would make you stop. Absence shows through no matter how good the deck looks.
MOUs, LOIs, and pipeline sitting on the same line as contracted revenue. Only what a contract supports survives as the base case.
“BEP in H2 next year” with no back-solve for how many units at what price it takes to get there.
“First in the country,” “best-in-class accuracy” - with no comparison set and no measurement method attached.
Why it's different
Clean design and a smooth narrative make a deck pleasant to read. They do not change the investment call. So the two are scored on separate tracks.
The 10-axis scorecard and the investment verdict come from here. No amount of deck craft moves this number.
Clarity, structure, sourcing, and numeric consistency are scored on their own track with their own fix list. The one path back into substance is this: if a metric has no definition, denominator, or period, the claim itself cannot be verified - and it gets downgraded on both.
These nine are binary - present or absent - so they are assessed independently of how polished the deck is. It is an objective check, unaffected by visual flair or presentation.
TIPS readiness
The official announcement and operating guidelines are pinned by version and effective date, then your materials are checked against eligibility and each dimension. For every item you get what is missing, what an evaluator is likely to ask, and what would close it.
Pricing
One payment. Not a subscription, no auto-billing.
No deck required - the write-up alone is enough to start. Your 1 free review returns the same verdict, scorecard, and evidence dashboard.
Get Started