How can an angel distinguish references from independent evidence for a deep tech startup?

Distinguish a source's direct observation from their opinion, inference, or relationship with the company. References can be informative and biased at the same time. Important claims deserve a provenance trail and, where feasible, corroboration.

Start with the decision

For each claim, record the source, relationship, date, actual observation, and available supporting record. Seek permission before sharing private statements. Preserve contradictions instead of selecting only the reference that supports the preferred decision.

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 team is developing a sensing component with a laboratory prototype. Commercial customers require validation outside the lab before a design win. Manufacturing and qualification milestones compete for the same runway.

A successful laboratory test does not establish production reliability or buyer adoption. Keep technical feasibility, manufacturability, customer qualification, and commercial commitment separate.

Turn the scenario into an evidence decision

Consider a review of a deep tech 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. Request dated test protocols, repeatability results, independent technical references, and a milestone budget. Distinguish a customer's evaluation agreement from an order. 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. Source quality depends on relevance and independence as well as reputation. A detailed firsthand account can answer a narrow question while remaining insufficient to support a broader claim about the company. 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.

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.

1. What was directly observed?
2. When was it observed?
3. What relationship exists?
4. Can a record corroborate it?
5. Which source disagrees?

Questions specific to this scenario

• What test can be reproduced?
• Which milestone depends on a third party?
• What changes between prototype and production?

Request dated test protocols, repeatability results, independent technical references, and a milestone budget. Distinguish a customer's evaluation agreement from an order.

A concrete next test

Ask a qualified technical reviewer to identify a repeatable test that distinguishes laboratory feasibility from the next commercial milestone. Record the equipment, conditions, dependencies, and evidence needed. A dramatic demonstration should not substitute for the specified validation process.

Interpret the result

Source quality depends on relevance and independence as well as reputation. A detailed firsthand account can answer a narrow question while remaining insufficient to support a broader claim about the company.

Compare the next financing milestone with the resources and dependencies needed to reach it. Use qualified technical reviewers for claims outside the investor's expertise.

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.

• Angel Capital Association: Knowledge Center
• Investor.gov: Private Equity Funds