Investor evidence scorecard: separate fit from confidence

Outcome

An investor evidence scorecard answers two different questions: how relevant the candidate appears, and how well the supplied facts support that judgment. Keeping those answers separate prevents a polished website from masquerading as stronger fit.

You will produce a field-level record with provenance, contradictions, and one decision-changing question. The skill uses only the saved material you provide. It does not browse for missing information, manufacture contact details, or convert a classifier's output into a probability of investment.

Choose claims, not impressions

Start with the fields that matter to your round: identity and current role, stage, geography, business model or theme, initial check, investing capacity, relevant activity, and potential portfolio overlap. A field belongs in the decision only if you can explain how it could change your action.

Evidence must support the particular claim. An official source is not universally conclusive. For example, the SEC explains that a Form D is a notice rather than approval of an offering. Do not turn a filing into an endorsement. SEC Investor.gov.

Likewise, a16z's portfolio disclosure cautions that its showcased investments are not all its investments. A missing logo cannot prove the absence of an investment or conflict. a16z portfolio disclosure.

Prepare the packet

Give every captured source a stable ID, URL, publisher, publication date when available, and capture date. Preserve enough surrounding text to interpret qualifications. A screenshot caption without its date can be useful evidence but should not silently become current.

Include the startup brief and the decision you need: approach, clarify, or park. If the brief is incomplete, the scorecard should identify the missing startup facts as well as missing investor facts.

A fictional scorecard

For fictional NorthPier Capital, your packet contains a clear stage mandate, one relevant investment, and an undated partner biography. The startup's stage and workflow align. Its target allocation is not addressed anywhere.

A defensible output is “plausible rationale; limited evidence; clarify initial check and current contact.” It is not “92% likely to invest.” If a verified allocation range would make the deal impossible, that is the decision-changing fact.

A second investor might have less complete marketing material but direct evidence resolving the key questions. It can be more actionable despite having fewer pages in the packet.

Review and reuse

Ask a human to inspect entity joins, hard mismatches, and the counterfactual. If the missing fact would not change anything, it is probably not worth blocking on. If identity is unresolved, do not confidently attribute a portfolio or mandate.

Keep this scorecard beside how to read an investor match. Use thesis fit to sharpen the rationale and diligence before the call to turn uncertainty into useful questions. Review portfolio conflicts before sharing sensitive materials.

Version 1.0, reviewed September 24, 2026. Compatible with assistants that accept pasted text. It is an evidence-classification aid, not legal, investment, or fundraising-success advice.