Transparent opportunity matching and shortlist platform

An MVP, or minimum viable product, is the smallest version that your users can actually work with. It is not a cheap version of the full solution. It is a test, built to answer the questions that decide whether the rest is worth building.

1. Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will investors and investment teams screening startups for a defined thesis use it to solve "opportunity signals, relationship context and diligence questions sit in separate tools, so shortlists are slow to assemble and hard to audit"?
2. Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
3. Run a paid pilot. Agree quality and outcome thresholds before the pilot using this measure: Shortlist hours per accepted candidate and corrections after investment committee review.
4. Measure, then decide. Track shortlist hours per accepted candidate and corrections after investment committee review; accepted-output rate; material error rate; reviewer correction time; actual repeat purchase. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.

MVP scope for this solution. Pilot scope: One defined thesis scope and permitted data sources; final investment judgments and relationship claims remain human. Implement one approved input format, a bounded representative case set and the first two task modules: capture the investment thesis and screening criteria; refresh market signals on a defined schedule. Support the remaining modules with operator review: process and sort incoming pitch decks; map relationships; generate pros, cons and diligence questions; score opportunities; answer conversational questions; flag founder signals; integrate permitted open-source data. Include source references, corrections, basic organization access, approval states, export and value measurement. Use managed operator assistance for unresolved exceptions. The cost estimate covers this narrow prototype, not unrestricted multi-tenant scale, complex production integrations, specialist certification or physical operations.

After the MVP. Once paid pilots prove usefulness, automate repeatable reviewed steps and add one verified source integration. Expand supported inputs and case volume only after new evaluation cases pass. Build reusable customer configurations and recurring value reports around reviewer-approved shortlist linked to source evidence. Retain the explicit scope boundary: One defined thesis scope and permitted data sources; final investment judgments and relationship claims remain human.

What the build depends on. Data upload and preview, asynchronous processing jobs, editable version history, reviewer access and tested export formats. High-fidelity production requires specialist investment QA. Obtain representative authorized cases, baseline measurements, qualified reviewers and a buyer-side decision owner. Specific limitation: One defined thesis scope and permitted data sources; final investment judgments and relationship claims remain human.

Pricing to test

Test a USD 300-1,500 fixed pilot for one defined thesis package. Offer a monthly production allowance after repeat demand. Quote complex data integrations or specialist research separately. These are test prices, not market benchmarks. Package the initial sale as one bounded reviewer-approved shortlist linked to source evidence. Recurring fees must specify volume, review depth and integration support. For exchanges, test a disclosed coordination or successful-service fee rather than holding customer funds. Reprice only after measuring real delivery labor; platform-build cost is separate from a commercial pilot fee.

Message to test

Reduce shortlist assembly time while keeping every ranking and recommendation traceable. Demonstrate a concrete reviewer-approved shortlist linked to source evidence using the buyer's approved example and show the baseline, corrections and actual delivery effort.

Where to find buyers

Investors and investment teams screening startups for a defined thesis professional communities; specialist consultants serving this buyer; permissioned partner introductions; practical demonstrations at relevant trade or practitioner events.

Lead magnet

A reviewed sample reviewer-approved shortlist linked to source evidence from a small authorized input set, with a transparent calculation of shortlist hours per accepted candidate and corrections after investment committee review and no promised savings.

The first 30 days

1. Week 1: interview five investors and investment teams screening startups for a defined thesis and inspect a recent example of opportunity signals, relationship context and diligence questions sitting in separate tools, so shortlists are slow to assemble and hard to audit.
2. Week 2: prepare a consented or synthetic demonstration of the task modules.
3. Week 3: seek one bounded paid pilot with agreed baseline and acceptance criteria.
4. Week 4: measure shortlist hours per accepted candidate and corrections after investment committee review, reviewer effort and repeat-purchase interest. This is a demand-validation plan, not a thirty-day full-product delivery promise.

Paid pilot

Agree quality and outcome thresholds before the pilot using this measure: Shortlist hours per accepted candidate and corrections after investment committee review. Continue only if the buyer accepts the actual output, the intended job outcome improves without unacceptable errors, and measured delivery cost fits willingness to pay. Revise or stop if access is unavailable, qualified review cannot be provided, or apparent savings disappear after corrections and support. Use held-out cases when comparing model quality; use a properly reviewed comparison design before making causal claims. Record missing cases and negative results alongside successful outputs.

Success metrics

Shortlist hours per accepted candidate and corrections after investment committee review; accepted-output rate; material error rate; reviewer correction time; actual repeat purchase.

Retention and expansion

Repeat the workflow when the buyer again needs reviewer-approved shortlist linked to source evidence. Retain permissioned settings and reviewed examples, report realized value honestly, and sell increased volume or adjacent approved workflows only after contribution margin and quality remain acceptable.

Why clients would pick it

A reusable library of approved thesis criteria, relationship maps and review examples, together with reliable delivery for a narrow investment niche. Build a permissioned library of representative task cases, reviewer corrections and verified operating constraints for investors and investment teams screening startups for a defined thesis. Repeatable delivery and useful integrations matter more than access to a base model.

Alternatives and positioning

Vela OS, Vela Terminal, Accorata, spreadsheets and manual research. Compare this product with the buyer's present method on shortlist hours per accepted candidate and corrections after investment committee review. Offer a bounded paid workflow instead of claiming broad autonomous expertise. Market uniqueness and competitor coverage are not verified.

Main delivery costs

Data refresh attempts, storage, reviewer hours, client revision rounds and licensed source data. Additional initial validation requires representative authorized sample preparation, buyer interviews, buyer-side evaluation and bounded validation of reviewer-approved shortlist linked to source evidence. Track cost per accepted output, including correction work, unsuccessful cases and support.