NumenVenture Pre-Screen · US Readiness
Sample report

A complete report from a deck Numen scored. The company name has been replaced with an alias; the scores and report text are unedited.

Assessed company

Company Aname inferred

Sample deck
VC score
70/ 12058%
Developing

The shape of the case is present; the evidence for it is not yet.

0607896120

60 Developing · 78 Promising · 96 Strong

The weighted total, computed in code from the evidence ratings for this deck. The same file scores the same every time: the ratings are made once and reused, so re-uploading returns this number, not a near one.

Investor readiness summary300500 words

Strongest evidence

Traction carries real weight behind Traction 7.2 of 10: 19 of 20 candidates placed and 70% retention are stated outcomes, not projections. Product 7.4 of 12 rests on a model tested at 71% accuracy and AUC 73% across 1,137 records, with an explicit target of 85% on 10K records. Value Proposition 3.9 of 6 and Market Opportunity 7.8 of 12 draw on matching time cut from 2 months to 2 weeks in a 24-person domestic pilot (73%) and a CAC of $333 against LTV of $3.7K (11x). Team 9.9 of 17 is backed by three named founders with domain credentials in AI and in the hiring vertical.

Where it's thin

Defensibility 2.6 of 8 rests on a single unelaborated assertion of 'patent + trademark' with no claims, scope, or grant status given. Ask & Use of Funds 1.9 of 5 reflects that no total raise amount in USD or KRW appears anywhere, only the phrase '18-month runway to $1M run-rate.' Financials 4.7 of 9 is undercut by an unreconciled conflict: 2025 revenue is stated as both $67K and $75K near page 9, and subscription retention appears as both 80% (4 of 5 subscribers) and 70%+ enterprise re-subscription elsewhere. US Product/Localization Readiness and Team/US Execution Capability show no U.S. entity, U.S. pricing, compliance localization, or named U.S. hires in place, with most further U.S. validation — compliance-driven interviews, VC meetings, PoC signing — explicitly described as planned for a future trip rather than executed. Combined with an unstated raise amount and second-market figures marked 'planned' rather than achieved, the deck reads earlier than the seed stage selected, closer to a pre-seed shape carrying seed-level traction claims.

What an investor asks first

The deck invites a first question of what the actual raise amount is and how it funds the stated milestones — 3–5 paid US pilots by December 2026, one US advisor, compliance localization — since the only figure given is '18-month runway to $1M run-rate' rather than a total. A second question is which 2025 revenue figure is correct, $67K or $75K, and which subscription retention figure holds, 80% or 70%+, since the source pages do not reconcile either pair.

What we found in the deckRead from your slides and speaker notes
Company naming is ambiguous between two recurring tokens — a header wordmark and a platform name used in several content slides; both appear meaningfully and no legal entity name is stated. 2025 revenue is stated inconsistently as both $67K and $75K on/near page 9 without reconciliation. Retention subscription figures also conflict slightly (80% vs 70%+ across pages 6, 9, 13, 14). No explicit total fundraising ask amount in USD/KRW is stated despite detailed milestone and sub-budget breakdowns. Several second-market figures (SOM/SAM/TAM, revenue) are presented as 'planned' rather than achieved and are clearly labeled as such in the deck. FX rate stated consistently as $1 ≈ ₩1,500 across pages, used to convert figures throughout.
Category scoresPoints at Seed
Problem
5.9/9
Value Proposition
3.9/6
Why Now
4.1/7
Product
7.4/12
Market Opportunity
7.8/12
Go-to-Market
5.5/10
Traction
7.2/10
Business Model
4.6/8
Competition
4.8/7
Defensibility
2.6/8
Financials
4.7/9
Ask & Use of Funds
1.9/5
Team
9.9/17
deficientincompleteevidenced

Colour reads how well the category is evidenced, judged the same way at every stage. Track length reads what the category is worth at Seed Team at 17 points is the longest, Ask & Use of Funds at 5 the shortest. So a bar can be fully green and still contribute little, or red and cost a lot. Vertical rules mark where Traction and Go-to-Market cross into Moderate and High risk at Seed.

US market readinessScored separately from the VC total
47.4 / 100
Not Yet U.S. Ready

Significant customer, competitive, GTM, or execution validation is still required.

US Problem / Customer Relevance7.8/15
US Target Customer Definition5.8/10
US Competitive Position9.3/15
US Product / Localization Readiness3.2/10
US Go-to-Market Strategy7.8/15
US Validation / Traction8.3/15
US Pricing & Business Model Fit2.2/10
Team / US Execution Capability3.0/10
Strongest area
The most credible US-facing evidence is competitive: a comparison table against two segment-specialist matching platforms, a staffing provider, and two general ATS vendors, alongside a 2nd place finish at a Silicon Valley accelerator pitch competition.
Primary gap
The most conspicuous absence is US product and localization readiness: no US federal contractor compliance localization, U.S. pricing, or U.S. legal entity exists yet, all listed as goals for December 2026 rather than completed work.
Major concern
A US investor's first question would be whether the signed $15K PoC LOI and the 'in talks' conversations with a global HR platform and an unnamed Silicon Valley VC convert into an actual paying US pilot before the stated year-end 2026 milestone.
Risk ratingIndependent of the score
How this was read
Confidence
Medium
Text read
2,296 words
Speaker notes
None found
Source
PDF
Elapsed
Read deck 0.3sAnalyze 96.5sScore 1msWrite report 37.3sTotal 134.1s
Other sample reportsBack to Numen