Decision catalogueMethod
Claim maps beat generic diligence checklists for seed decisions
Decision problem
How should a lean team test science under a short deal deadline?
Thesis
For lean funds, the scarce resource is decision clarity under a clock — not encyclopedic coverage.
Broad domain checklists are valuable in full transactions. They are the wrong default for a seed or Series A team with a short decision window and an incomplete internal bench.
Start from the investment thesis: what must be true for the check to make sense, what evidence would falsify it, and which domains you are not reviewing. If a claim cannot be established, say so.
Deliver a claim-evidence matrix, risk register, management questions, and partner briefing for one live decision. A memo that pretends to cover everything either gets ignored or over-read.
Claim map
Claims a Decision Sprint memo would force onto the page
- Must-be-true claims are derived from the investment thesis, not a generic checklist
- Each material claim has support, contradiction, absence, or comparator evidence labeled
- Unreviewed domains are listed so partners do not over-read the memo
Decision triggers
Outputs from the claim test that should change the conversation
- Checklist coverage substituted for claim-level tests
- Missing evidence treated as neutral rather than material unknown
- Memo implying completeness the clock and scope cannot support
Sources
Related in the catalogue
- Method · how a Decision Sprint works
How claims are pulled from the thesis, checked against published evidence, and written for the investment call.
- Platform story, asset check: separate them before you commit
Is this raise underwriting a product path or an unresolved platform science project?
- When not to buy outsourced diligence
When does an outsourced science review create no decision value?
Facing this cut on a live $1–10M package?
Scope a Decision Sprint for one opportunity under your deal deadline—claim map, risk register, management questions, and partner briefing.