This is a redacted sample built to show the shape and depth of a real Investor-Readiness Review. "Bowlwise" - a consumer app for personalized dog nutrition and vet-aligned feeding plans - is invented, and the numbers and findings are illustrative. A real review uses your own model, deck, and data, and its verdict is specific to your company.
Bowlwise has a real wedge and early retention most pre-seed pet apps never reach. It is not ready to open a $1.5M round in its current form, because three things will fail diligence: the CAC math is presented in a way an investor will see through, the ask is ahead of the traction, and the model overstates Year-2 revenue by roughly 3x on one formula alone. None are fatal; all are fixable in about six weeks. Raising now means raising into those gaps and getting marked down on them. Raising once they're fixed is the difference between a soft round and a clean one.
This is not "you aren't good enough." It is "you're about to leave the round's terms on the table by going early."
Scored 0-3 per criterion (0 = absent, 1 = weak, 2 = adequate for stage, 3 = a strength an investor will underwrite). Benchmark is pre-seed.
| Criterion | Score | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Market & timing | ||
| Problem clarity | 3 | Real, repeated pain; owners over-rely on generic feeding advice. |
| Market sizing, honest | 2 | Top-down TAM inflates; the reachable wedge is strong on its own. |
| Why now | 2 | Vet-telehealth normalization is the real tailwind; the deck buries it. |
| Product & traction | ||
| Evidence of demand | 3 | Organic waitlist conversion is the best signal in the file. |
| Retention | 2 | Month-3 retention solid; cohort depth too short to claim more. |
| Differentiation | 2 | Vet-alignment is defensible; the "AI" framing is not. |
| Team | ||
| Founder-market fit | 3 | Clinical co-founder is a genuine credibility asset. |
| Gaps acknowledged | 1 | No growth owner; the deck implies it's solved. |
| Unit economics | ||
| CAC, defensible | 1 | Blended CAC hides a rising paid CAC (see 03). |
| LTV basis | 1 | LTV uses an unsupported 30-month lifetime. |
| Margin clarity | 2 | Subscription margin clear; affiliate margin overstated. |
| Financials | ||
| Model integrity | 1 | Year-2 revenue overstated ~3x (see 03). |
| Burn & runway | 2 | Burn is honest; runway math is fine. |
| Use of funds | 2 | Directionally right, not tied to milestones. |
| Round logic | ||
| Ask vs traction | 1 | $1.5M is ahead of what $18K MRR supports. |
| Valuation realism | 1 | Target cap is well ahead of $18K MRR; expect a markdown. |
| Investor fit | 2 | Targeting generalist seed funds who'll pass; pet-aware angels fit better. |
The model is structurally sound, but three issues change the story an investor reads.
The deck shows a $14 blended CAC. Backing paid spend out of the model gives a paid CAC of ~$47, and it's rising month over month. For consumer pet apps the benchmark band is $50-150, so $47 isn't alarming - but presenting it as $14 blended is, because an investor finds the real number quickly and then discounts everything else you've claimed.
Subscription revenue applies the trial-to-paid conversion rate to total installs rather than to active users. Since only ~30% of installs are active in a given month, this inflates the paid-subscriber count - and therefore revenue - by roughly 3x. Corrected for this alone, Year-2 revenue drops from the ~$6.4M shown to ~$2.1M. This is the single highest-value fix in the engagement: a clean, conservative model you can defend line by line is worth more in the room than an aggressive one you can't.
The $12B top-down TAM is disconnected from a $18K-MRR reality and reads as deck-filler. The bottom-up reachable number is smaller and far more persuasive, because it's believable and it shows you understand your own funnel.
The traction slide mixes what's done with what's planned. Separate them. "Launching a vet-partnership channel" is a milestone, not traction; folding it in makes an investor distrust the rest of the slide.
Every investor will ask who runs acquisition. "We'll hire post-raise" is an acceptable answer - but only if you name the gap yourself. Implying it's handled is the tell that costs you credibility.
The single most important move: fix the model and the CAC slide before anyone outside the room sees the round. Everything else compounds off being trusted on the numbers.