Fund managers
How can a pre-seed venture fund prepare a reference process for LPs?
a pre-seed venture fund: Prepare references who can speak to specific relevant work, with their permission and without scripting an endorsement.
Prepare references who can speak to specific relevant work, with their permission and without scripting an endorsement. Different people observe sourcing, judgment, collaboration, support, and reporting. Clarify what each reference actually knows.
Start with the decision
Create a reference map by question and relationship. Confirm permission, timing, and the information that may be discussed. Leave room for mixed feedback and avoid treating the process as a collection of universally positive testimonials.
The illustrative scenario
This is an educational workbook. The company or fund and all numerical inputs below are fictional. They are not ADIN results, customer claims, market benchmarks, or a forecast.
The fictional fund plans small initial investments before companies have repeatable revenue. It expects to reserve capital for selected later rounds. The LP is reviewing whether check sizes, ownership assumptions, and support work fit the fund budget.
Early paper marks can move before meaningful liquidity. Separate investment selection, subsequent financing, ownership dilution, and cash distributions when discussing progress.
Turn the scenario into an evidence decision
Consider a review of a pre-seed venture fund in which a confident explanation arrives before the supporting records. Start with the first question in the table. Write down what an answer would change: the next interview, the experiment's scope, a request for specialist review, or a decision to wait. A question without a consequence can produce a longer document while adding little understanding.
Next, inspect the record named in the table and record its date, owner, permission boundary, and limitations. Request the portfolio model, reserve policy, ownership assumptions, dated company evidence, and a reporting sample that distinguishes marks from cash. Include companies that failed or did not raise again. If the record contradicts the explanation, preserve both accounts and ask which definition, period, or workflow differs. Do not silently select the version that makes the opportunity look strongest.
Finish with a conditional statement: if the specified evidence supports the claim under these conditions, take the named next step; otherwise investigate the unresolved question. A candid reference process can help LPs understand both strengths and limitations. It should not suggest that a prior employer, founder, or investor guarantees the new fund's performance or endorses every claim. This worked exercise is about the decision process. It does not assert that a fictional company has met a real diligence standard or that a template can authorize an investment.
| Item | Illustration |
|---|---|
| Decision question | What did the person observe? |
| Case-specific constraint | Early paper marks can move before meaningful liquidity. Separate investment selection, subsequent financing, ownership dilution, and cash distributions when discussing progress. |
| Record to inspect | Request the portfolio model, reserve policy, ownership assumptions, dated company evidence, and a reporting sample that distinguishes marks from cash. Include companies that failed or did not raise again. |
| Comparison to preserve | Compare the proposed number of companies with investable capital after the model's costs and reserves. Treat a target ownership percentage as an assumption until terms support it. |
| Unresolved case question | What is funded by the first check? |
Use this worksheet
Answer the questions with a source, date, owner, and next action. Mark an unknown as unknown. Use public or permissioned information and involve a qualified specialist when a question requires expertise beyond the team’s competence.
- What did the person observe?
- Which question can they answer?
- Is permission confirmed?
- What relationship may bias the view?
- Which capability lacks a reference?
Questions specific to this scenario
- What is funded by the first check?
- Which follow-ons qualify?
- How are unsuccessful investments represented?
Request the portfolio model, reserve policy, ownership assumptions, dated company evidence, and a reporting sample that distinguishes marks from cash. Include companies that failed or did not raise again.
A concrete next test
Rebuild the initial-check and reserve model with a smaller final close. Ask which portfolio assumptions change and what evidence supports the ownership target. Compare early company milestones with paper marks so the LP can distinguish learning progress from cash realization.
Interpret the result
A candid reference process can help LPs understand both strengths and limitations. It should not suggest that a prior employer, founder, or investor guarantees the new fund's performance or endorses every claim.
Compare the proposed number of companies with investable capital after the model's costs and reserves. Treat a target ownership percentage as an assumption until terms support it.
Sources and method
These primary resources provide background for the concepts. The fictional scenario, calculations, and worksheet are ADIN educational examples; the sources do not report or validate those invented results. Reviewed October 11, 2026.