Skip to content
Delsivo

Short answer: This deal screening scorecard records a first look at a startup in four parts: thesis criteria with the observed value, source and a Met, Mismatch or Unknown result; three separate readings for thesis fit, evidence quality and diligence readiness; questions for the founder from each Unknown; and a decision made and explained by a person. It deliberately has no single total score.

Key takeaways

  • Cite where each observed value came from: slide, call or document.
  • Unknown becomes a question. Mismatch goes to a person.
  • Keep fit, evidence quality and readiness separate; one number hides too much.
  • Write the reason for every decision, especially overrides.

Deal screening scorecard to copy

Fill Part 1 from the deck and application, then decide Part 2 and Part 4 yourself.

Screening scorecard (plain text)
DEAL SCREENING SCORECARD
Company: [ ]          Reviewer: [ ]          Date: [ ]          Thesis version: [ ]
Results: Met / Mismatch / Unknown. Unknown is a question to ask, not a fail. Mismatch goes to a person for review.

PART 1: THESIS CRITERIA
Criterion            | Rule                         | Observed           | Source (slide, call, doc) | Result
Stage                | [ ]                          | [ ]                | [ ]                       | [ ]
Geography            | [ ]                          | [ ]                | [ ]                       | [ ]
Customer and sector  | [ ]                          | [ ]                | [ ]                       | [ ]
Business model       | [ ]                          | [ ]                | [ ]                       | [ ]
Round and cheque fit | [ ]                          | [ ]                | [ ]                       | [ ]
[Your preference]    | [ ]                          | [ ]                | [ ]                       | [ ]

PART 2: THREE READINGS (keep them separate)
Thesis fit:            Strong / Partial / Weak       Why: [ ]
Evidence quality:      Strong / Partial / Weak       Why: [ ] (are key numbers defined and sourced?)
Diligence readiness:   Ready / Some gaps / Not yet   Why: [ ] (could we start diligence next week?)

PART 3: QUESTIONS FOR THE FOUNDER
From each Unknown above:
1. [ ]
2. [ ]
3. [ ]

PART 4: DECISION (made by a person)
[ ] Advance to first meeting     [ ] Ask questions first     [ ] Pass     [ ] Revisit on [date]
Reason in one or two sentences: [ ]
If this overrides a criterion result, say which and why: [ ]
Decided by: [ ]

NOT SCORED
Founder age, gender, school or former employer brand, accent, fluency, appearance or presentation polish.

Why the scorecard has no total score

A single score mixes three different questions: should we look, can we trust the numbers, and could we start diligence now. A company can fit the thesis well with thin evidence, or have excellent evidence and sit outside the thesis. Keeping the readings apart tells the next reviewer what to do, not just how the company ranked.

What to change

  • Copy the criteria from your written thesis, in the same order and wording.
  • Add an exceptions line if your thesis allows them, with who may approve one.
  • Accelerators can add programme fit, such as availability for the cohort dates.
  • Pin the thesis version, so a later re-screen can be compared fairly.

What to leave out

Leave out anything that scores the person rather than the company: age, gender, school or employer brand, accent, fluency, appearance or presentation polish. These are listed on the scorecard as not scored, so reviewers can see the rule. Also leave out criteria you can't observe from an application; they only produce Unknowns.

Scoring with or without Delsivo

A spreadsheet row per deal works. Delsivo's fit report, part of thesis screening planned for the Pilot release, is designed to fill Part 1 with each criterion's rule, observed value, rationale and source, show the three readings separately, and require a reason for every override. A person decides each stage change.

FAQ

Questions about deal screening scorecard

The fund's thesis criteria, what the startup's materials say for each with a source, a result per criterion, questions for unknowns and a decision with a reason.

It can, but a single number hides whether a company fails on fit or only lacks evidence. Separate readings are more useful for the next step.

Usually an analyst or associate, with a partner reviewing any mismatch or override.
Design partner pilots

Review your next deals with the evidence in one place

We set up your branded portal and thesis rubric with you, calibrate on your historical deals, then run live intake beside your current process.

Talk to us