AI Investor Review: Investor Lens rubric (A–L)
Investor Lens (schema investor_lens_v1) is the scoring contract behind AI Investor Review. Each parameter has a check, strong/weak signals, pass / partial / fail, and score 0–2. Category weights roll up to Investor Readiness (0–100). Auto-fail elements can cap readiness at 35.
Investor Lens A–L
| ID | Category | Weight | What it checks |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Narrative completeness | 8% | A1–A12 · auto-fail A1,A2,A6,A10,A11 |
| B | Substance quality | 6% | Specificity, quantification, evidence |
| C | Traction rigor | 18% | Highest weight · current metrics, no vanity |
| D | Market sizing sanity | 12% | TAM sourced · bottom-up · no 1% fallacy |
| E | Business model & unit economics | 6% | Pricing, CAC/LTV, path to scale |
| F | Moat / defensibility | 12% | Named moat · compounding loop |
| G | Team | 16% | High weight · founder–market fit |
| H | The ask & use of funds | 5% | Amount, instrument, 100% use split |
| I | Internal consistency | 4% | Numbers/names match across slides |
| J | Communication & craft | 8% | Arc, skimmable, headline-driven |
| K | AI-first-filter readiness | 3% | Survives LLM extraction/summary |
| L | Red flags | 2% | L1–L12 deterministic deck-killers |
Categories & weights
- C Traction rigor (18%) — current metrics with windows; no vanity as proof.
- G Team (16%) — who, why this team, relevant proof.
- F Moat (12%) / D Market sizing (12%) — defensibility and sane TAM/SAM/SOM.
- J Communication (8%) / A Narrative completeness (8%) — craft and required story elements.
- B Substance (6%) / E Business model (6%) / H Ask & use of funds (5%).
- I Consistency (4%) / K AI-first-filter (3%) / L Red flags (2% weight, high severity when triggered).
Auto-fail (score cap)
AUTO_FAIL_ELEMENTS: A1 Problem, A2 Solution / product, A6 Traction / evidence, A10 Team, A11 The ask. If missing or failed, Investor Readiness can be capped at 35 until the deck states them clearly (for the ask: amount, instrument, use of funds).
Parameter table (sample rows)
| ID | Parameter | Verdict | 0–2 | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Problem | pass | 2 | Painful ICP problem stated on slide 2 with named buyer. |
| A6auto-fail | Traction / evidence | fail | 0 | No revenue, pilots, or LOIs — only “growing interest.” |
| C7 | No vanity metrics | fail | 0 | “50k users” with no active/paid breakdown. |
| D2 | Bottom-up calc | partial | 1 | SAM stated; bottoms-up method missing. |
| H1 | Raise amount | fail | 0 | Ask amount and instrument not stated. |
Live report groups rows under collapsible categories (A opens by default with C). Evidence slide refs appear when present.
How parameters are scored
- pass (2) — slide evidence supports the check.
- partial (1) — present but vague, incomplete, or weakly evidenced.
- fail (0) — missing or contradicted; prioritize before outreach.
Sources vary by parameter: most are DECK extraction; some use FOOTPRINT (site) or VERIFY (claim checks). Category K compares deck thesis to an LLM screen summary and records the gap.
FOCUS (after Focus Group)
Focus Group cross-check (FOCUS)
| ID | Parameter | Verdict | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| FG1 | Objection preemption | fail | FG raised pricing opacity; deck never addresses it. |
| FG3 | Investor intent signal | partial | Idea score mid; ask slide overstates demand. |
| FG5 | Message resonance | pass | FG emotional triggers align with problem slide. |
Appears only after a linked AI Focus Group finishes for this GEO. Until then the tab shows a pending notice.
- FG1 Objection preemption — deck addresses FG objections.
- FG2 High-risk coverage — high-risk FG themes acknowledged or mitigated.
- FG3 Investor intent signal — Idea/ratings vs deck stage and ask.
- FG4 ICP / persona fit — resonance with FG personas.
- FG5 Message resonance — FG emotional themes vs deck narrative.
FOCUS does not replace A–L; it checks whether the deck survives buyer simulation after the deck rubric.