Key takeaways
- Planned for a later release, listed in the PRD's sourcing requirement (FR09).
- Emailed pitches would join the same pipeline, rubric and claim tracker as portal applications.
- Attachments would get the same malware scan before anything is previewed or extracted.
- In the pilot, an analyst adds emailed pitches by hand and uploads the deck on the deal.
Planned feature: not in Delsivo yet, and details may change before it ships.
Why a pitch intake mailbox matters
Not every founder will use your portal. Warm introductions arrive by email, partners get decks directly, and some founders will always reply to a newsletter with a PDF. If those pitches live in personal inboxes, they skip the rubric, the claim tracker and the record of who decided what. A shared intake address closes that gap.
The PRD lists the mailbox with the other sourcing features (CRM import, scout links, relationship attribution) in its later phase. The deck data model already records how each deck arrived, with email as one of the planned routes.
How it is expected to work
- 1Your fund gets a dedicated intake address.
- 2A partner forwards a pitch to it, or a founder emails it directly.
- 3Delsivo creates a draft deal, or suggests an existing one when the company domain or founder already matches.
- 4The attached deck is scanned for malware, then extracted and cited like any other deck.
- 5An analyst reviews the draft, fills gaps and decides whether it enters screening.
These steps are a plan, not a built flow, and the details will be set with design partners. The parts that won't change: every deck is scanned before it is opened, and a person decides what happens to every deal.
Portal applications and emailed pitches compared
| Portal application (pilot) | Intake mailbox (later) | |
|---|---|---|
| Who starts it | The founder | A partner forwarding, or the founder emailing |
| Structured fields | Collected by your form | Mostly missing; becomes Unknown and turns into questions |
| Consent and privacy notice | Shown on your portal before submit | To be designed, because the founder never saw your form |
| Deck handling | Scan, extraction, slide citations | The same pipeline |
| Duplicates | Suggested by domain and founder | Suggested the same way, confirmed by an analyst |
Missing form fields are not a failure. In your investment thesis rubric, a value that isn't known stays Unknown and becomes a question, which could go out later as a founder information request.
Open questions before it is built
- How a founder who emailed, rather than applied, is told how the fund handles their data.
- Whether the fund's own domain can be used for the address, as it can for sending email in the first release.
- How links to deck hosting services are handled. The pilot accepts uploaded PDFs only.
- How email threads are kept: the full message, or only the pitch and attachment.