Decision catalogueQualification
When not to buy outsourced diligence
Decision problem
When does an outsourced science review create no decision value?
Thesis
If there is no named decision, no deadline, no evidence access, or only a desire for confirmation, a Decision Sprint will not create value.
Qualification is part of the product. What decision and by when? What is technically hardest? What materials exist? Who will review the output? What would change the decision?
Requests that fail those tests — overflow without a live decision owner, promotional validation for founders, or deadlines that invent source access — should end in the first call.
Declining quickly is a trust signal. It also protects delivery quality for seed and Series A buyers with a real deadline and a lean science bench.
Claim map
Must-be-true cuts a Decision Sprint memo would force
- A named decision owner and deadline exist
- Evidence access makes the clock real
- The buyer wants a pressure test, not confirmation theater
Decision triggers
Outputs from the claim test that should change the conversation
- No term-sheet, syndication, follow-on, or partner-meeting decision attached
- Source access cannot support the stated timeline
- Engagement framed as promotional validation rather than claim testing
Related in the catalogue
- Method · graph-backed claim testing
How claims are decomposed, tested against the evidence graph, and turned into decision outputs.
- Claim maps beat generic diligence checklists for seed decisions
How should a lean team pressure-test science under a 5–20 day deal deadline?
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.