Angel investors
What downside scenarios should an angel investigate for an AI application startup?
an AI application startup: Investigate downside through concrete failure paths and dependencies rather than a generic risk list.
Investigate downside through concrete failure paths and dependencies rather than a generic risk list. Customer loss, technical failure, financing delays, team capacity, and external requirements may interact. Do not assume a downside scenario has a known probability.
Start with the decision
Choose several conditions that would invalidate the current plan and trace their consequences. Ask what the team could observe early and what responses are feasible. Keep total loss among the possible outcomes of a startup investment.
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 sells an AI assistant to small support departments. A demonstration works on familiar examples, but the product is still testing performance on new customers' queues. Founder time currently covers many exceptions.
Separate model output from completed customer work. A software revenue claim needs a matching view of model usage, human delivery, customer support, and rework.
Turn the scenario into an evidence decision
Consider a review of an AI application 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 a permissioned evaluation sample, customer usage cohorts, an exception log, and a cost model that includes human work. Keep actual results distinct from roadmap features. 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 scenario exercise helps structure inquiry without predicting an outcome. It is most useful when it reveals a decision or missing evidence, not when it assigns unsupported probabilities to make uncertainty look measured. 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 assumption could fail? |
| Case-specific constraint | Separate model output from completed customer work. A software revenue claim needs a matching view of model usage, human delivery, customer support, and rework. |
| Record to inspect | Request a permissioned evaluation sample, customer usage cohorts, an exception log, and a cost model that includes human work. Keep actual results distinct from roadmap features. |
| Comparison to preserve | Compare the promised workflow with the delivered workflow. The relevant question is whether adoption and delivery economics improve together. |
| Unresolved case question | Who reviews failures? |
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 assumption could fail?
- What consequence follows?
- What early signal exists?
- What response is feasible?
- Which dependency cannot be controlled?
Questions specific to this scenario
- Who reviews failures?
- How much founder work supports each account?
- Which results hold on unseen examples?
Request a permissioned evaluation sample, customer usage cohorts, an exception log, and a cost model that includes human work. Keep actual results distinct from roadmap features.
A concrete next test
Observe a permissioned workflow where the assistant fails or needs founder intervention. Record the human time and what the customer sees. Compare that case with the demo so the diligence discussion addresses delivered work rather than only the best familiar example.
Interpret the result
A scenario exercise helps structure inquiry without predicting an outcome. It is most useful when it reveals a decision or missing evidence, not when it assigns unsupported probabilities to make uncertainty look measured.
Compare the promised workflow with the delivered workflow. The relevant question is whether adoption and delivery economics improve together.
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.