Rapid batch triage of 10-50+ startups into investment tiers using IASV criteria. Screens for thesis fit, red flags, and prioritizes deep-dive candidates.
72
90%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Key changes:
screening_criteria:
traction:
weight: 0.30
signals:
strong:
- Revenue > $500K ARR
- 100+ paying customers
- Clear growth trajectory (>20% MoM)
moderate:
- Revenue < $500K but growing
- 10-100 customers
- Pilots with named enterprises
weak:
- No revenue
- Only beta users
- No named customers
team:
weight: 0.25
signals:
strong:
- Prior exits
- Domain expertise (5+ years)
- Technical co-founder
- Full-time commitment
moderate:
- Relevant industry experience
- Strong advisory board
- Young but executing fast (YC-validated)
weak:
- First-time founders with no domain expertise
- No technical co-founder
- Part-time
market:
weight: 0.20
signals:
strong:
- TAM > $1B
- Clear macro tailwind
- Regulatory advantage
moderate:
- TAM $100M-$1B
- Growing market
weak:
- Niche market
- Declining sector
differentiation:
weight: 0.15
signals:
strong:
- Proprietary tech/IP
- Network effects
- Data moat
- Hardware moat (manufacturing relationships, supply chain)
moderate:
- Execution advantage
- Unique positioning
weak:
- Commodity space
- Many competitors
stage_fit:
weight: 0.10
signals:
strong:
- Stage matches fund thesis
- Check size appropriate
- Geography aligned
weak:
- Too early or too late
- Check size mismatch| Signal | Points |
|---|---|
| Any revenue | +2 |
| 10+ customers | +2 |
| Enterprise pilot | +1 |
| Founder has prior exit | +2 |
| Noted as interesting by group | +1 |
| Total Points | Tier |
|---|---|
| 5+ | TIER 1: Strong initial signals |
| 3-4 | TIER 2: Needs validation |
| Below 3 | TIER 3/4: Requires deeper review |