For funds, syndicates and corporate finance
You reject most of what reaches you, and you reject it on paper.
Deal flow arrives unfiltered and mostly unready. The filtering happens in the first few slides, in minutes, by a human. Everything before that point is cost, and everything after it’s memory.
The filtering problem, drawn
The same judgement, applied the same way, with the reason written down.
Inbound arrives undifferentiated and gets filtered in minutes by whoever opened it. The decision is usually right and it is never recorded, so the same company reads differently in January and June.
Give us your criteria, weighted by you, and every company that arrives is read against your thesis rather than a generic one. The threshold is yours. So is the reason attached to every pass.
The companies below the line are not rejected. They are the ones you can watch, because they rescore.
An illustration of consistent filtering, not observed data.
Your criteria, made explicit
We don’t ask you to fill in a blank sheet.
Most investors can't state their criteria from a standing start, and the deals they actually do rarely match the criteria they'd write down. So we don't ask. We give you the criteria and you weight them, against a fixed budget of votes. Marking something mission critical costs most of the budget, so only a few things can be, which is the point.
The weighting is an overlay. It ranks and filters against your thesis. It never alters the underlying score, which stays canonical so every company remains comparable with every other.
- Your criteria on the record, weighted, revisable at any time
- Inbound companies read against your weighting, not a generic one
- A consistent position on every company, taken the same way
- A reason attached to every pass, which today doesn’t exist
How matching behaves
No spraying. Terms agreed before any introduction.
Both sides opt in
A company chooses to enter matching. You see companies that clear your weighted threshold. Nothing is forwarded anywhere without the company choosing it.
In writing, in advance
The terms of an introduction are shown to both sides and agreed before it’s made, including who the company is already talking to, so nobody is introduced into a conversation that exists.
Not a one-off event
Matches refresh as companies rescore. A company two fixes short of your threshold today may clear it next quarter, and you see that happen.
The fund raise after this one
The portfolio evidence problem, solved before you need it.
A first fund raises its successor years before exits exist. The conversation turns on one question: can you show the portfolio moved.
Measured twice a year on a versioned instrument, it can, per company, from the day of investment. That record can't be reconstructed later. It can only be started now.
| Measure | Today | With the portfolio on the instrument |
|---|---|---|
| Inbound filtering | Manual, minutes per deck, no record | Read against your weighted criteria, consistently |
| Portfolio progress between rounds | Board pack anecdote and revenue lag | Movement per company, twice a year, same scale |
| The evidence pack for your own investors | Written from scratch, unverifiable | Produced from the measurement record, independently checkable |
| Post-investment support | Generic | Aimed at each company's named blocker |
What every company in your cohort receives
A ten-page read the founder gets in full: position, capability against momentum, the root cause, and the first fix. It is why they answer honestly.
Free to them, whether or not they ever speak to you again. The same result is what aggregates into your reporting, so there is one artefact and two audiences rather than a company view and a separate management view that can disagree.
What changes in the job
- Every pass has a reason attached. Recorded, consistent, and reviewable six months later
- Execution risk is visible before it hits the investment case, not at the board meeting after
- Portfolio support is aimed. You know which company needs what, rather than offering the same platform services to all
- Board reporting gains a comparable measure across companies at different stages and in different sectors
- The next fund has evidence that the portfolio moved, built from day one rather than reconstructed
Corporate finance
We don't want your clients. We want your clients measured.
Advisers who bring their client base onto the instrument keep the relationship, keep the mandate and keep the fee. What they gain is time back on preparation and evidence to hand their own investors.
Terms are agreed in advance, in writing, before anything is introduced.
We don’t claim that a score predicts or improves the likelihood of investment. It reports a position and its movement. Nothing more.