Scouts
How can a scout turn feedback on an early marketplace startup into a better next introduction?
an early marketplace startup: Use feedback to improve relevance and evidence, not merely to chase a different pitch.
Use feedback to improve relevance and evidence, not merely to chase a different pitch. A pass can reflect mandate, timing, missing information, or investment judgment. Ask which of those applies and avoid presenting one fund's view as a universal verdict on the company.
Start with the decision
Record the stated reason and the question it raises for the next introduction. Share feedback with the founder only as permitted. Distinguish a misunderstood explanation from an actual evidence gap or a fund-specific preference.
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 company connects independent repair businesses with commercial property managers. Initial transactions happen in one city. The founder reports total booking value, but revenue depends on completed jobs and the platform's actual take.
Supply listings are not the same as available, reliable capacity. Booking value, collected revenue, cancellations, and repeat demand must be separated.
Turn the scenario into an evidence decision
Consider a review of an early marketplace startup 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. Inspect completed transaction cohorts, cancellation reasons, provider retention, and contribution costs by market. Obtain permission before contacting participants or sharing their transaction details. 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 feedback log is useful when it changes the next screen or question. It should not become a collection of unsupported labels about founders or a promise that revising a deck will secure funding. 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 | Why did the fund pass? |
| Case-specific constraint | Supply listings are not the same as available, reliable capacity. Booking value, collected revenue, cancellations, and repeat demand must be separated. |
| Record to inspect | Inspect completed transaction cohorts, cancellation reasons, provider retention, and contribution costs by market. Obtain permission before contacting participants or sharing their transaction details. |
| Comparison to preserve | Compare a completed, repeatable match with the current alternative. Separate demand acquisition from the work needed to fulfill and support each transaction. |
| Unresolved case question | Which bookings completed? |
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.
- Why did the fund pass?
- Was the company understood?
- What evidence was missing?
- What is fund-specific?
- What may be shared with the founder?
Questions specific to this scenario
- Which bookings completed?
- What brings a buyer back?
- How much local support does each market need?
Inspect completed transaction cohorts, cancellation reasons, provider retention, and contribution costs by market. Obtain permission before contacting participants or sharing their transaction details.
A concrete next test
Choose one completed match and one cancelled booking. Trace acquisition, fulfillment, payment, and support costs for each. Ask what would bring both sides back without an incentive so the inquiry separates transaction volume from a repeatable local marketplace.
Interpret the result
A feedback log is useful when it changes the next screen or question. It should not become a collection of unsupported labels about founders or a promise that revising a deck will secure funding.
Compare a completed, repeatable match with the current alternative. Separate demand acquisition from the work needed to fulfill and support each transaction.
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.