Angel investors
How can an angel distinguish references from independent evidence for an early marketplace startup?
an early marketplace startup: Distinguish a source's direct observation from their opinion, inference, or relationship with the company.
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 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. 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.
| Item | Illustration |
|---|---|
| Decision question | What was directly observed? |
| 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.
- What was directly observed?
- When was it observed?
- What relationship exists?
- Can a record corroborate it?
- Which source disagrees?
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
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 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.