Key takeaways
- AI helps with reading and structuring: extracting deck facts, applying a rubric, spotting inconsistencies and drafting questions.
- Every AI finding should cite its source, so a person can check it in seconds.
- AI should never move a deal, reject a founder or write to one on its own.
- Delsivo's interviews are assessed on substance and evidence, never on accent, fluency, polish, appearance or background.
Where AI for venture capital helps
Most of a fund's early work is reading. A deck has to be read and its facts noted, the thesis applied, a founder's answers compared with what the deck said, and a list of questions written. This is where AI does well, provided every output points back to where it came from.
| AI suggests | People decide |
|---|---|
| Deck facts and claims, each with a slide citation | Every stage change, pass and investment decision |
| How each thesis criterion reads, with its source | Every message and request sent to a founder |
| Interview assessments with timestamped excerpts (first release) | Accepting, editing or dismissing each suggestion |
| Claim updates, questions and research findings | Overrides, always with a recorded reason |
| Drafts of follow-up questions, briefs and memos | Which rubric version is published |
What AI should not decide
An investment decision weighs judgement, timing, portfolio construction and conviction about people. None of that should be handed to a model. Nor should a model reject a founder, change a deal's stage or send a message on the fund's behalf. In Delsivo a mismatch against your thesis is surfaced for an analyst to review, never an automatic rejection, and a missing value is shown as Unknown and turned into a question instead of counted as a failure.
AI suggestions are labelled and look different from verified findings, so nobody mistakes a draft for a checked fact. Overrides are allowed and need a reason, which stays in the audit history.
Citations, or it doesn't count
An AI summary that can't be checked creates work: someone has to reread the deck to trust it. Delsivo is designed so every finding cites its source, whether a deck version and slide, an interview answer and timestamp, a form answer, a room document and page, or a dated web page. Quotes that can't be found in the source are dropped.
Uploaded documents and web pages are treated as untrusted input, so text inside a deck can't instruct the AI. See claims and evidence for how claims carry their sources through to the decision.
Interviews and fairness
Live AI founder interviews, planned for the first release, are assessed on the transcript only: the substance of what was said and the evidence behind it. The AI never sees the video or the shared screen, accent, fluency, presentation polish, appearance and background are excluded, and speech metrics such as pace or filler words are not computed for investors. A text interview under the same rubric is always available, and founders can flag transcription errors.
No process removes human bias, and Delsivo does not claim to. What it can do is apply the same published criteria to every founder, show its sources, and leave the decision to people who can be asked why. More on founder interviews.
Questions to ask any AI tool for venture
- Does every finding link to the page, slide or timestamp it came from?
- What happens when information is missing: a guess, a penalty, or an open question?
- Can the tool move a deal or contact a founder without a person approving it?
- Are founder documents used to train models? Delsivo uses AI providers under terms that don't train on submitted content, confirmed per provider before customer content is processed.
- What is excluded from interview or pitch assessment, and is that written down?