Angel investors
What evidence should an angel request before investing in a fintech software startup?
a fintech software startup: Request evidence that corresponds to the company's current claims and the decision you are considering.
Request evidence that corresponds to the company's current claims and the decision you are considering. Pre-revenue diligence should not pretend revenue history exists, but it can investigate customer behavior, product capability, team execution, and cash needs. Keep observations separate from founder projections.
Start with the decision
Build a claim-to-record map and name the largest unresolved assumption. Review negative evidence and missing information alongside the strongest examples. Use qualified specialists when the relevant technical, accounting, or legal question exceeds your competence.
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 provides reconciliation software for finance operations. A customer pilot uses a limited dataset and does not move customer funds. The commercial plan depends on integrations and a clearly defined operating role.
The word fintech covers many activities. Verify the product's actual function and use qualified counsel to investigate applicable obligations instead of inferring permissions from a category label.
Turn the scenario into an evidence decision
Consider a review of a fintech software 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. Review a data-flow diagram, authorized integration tests, customer references, contracts, and specialist assessments of the operating model. Keep software features separate from regulated activities. 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 diligence checklist organizes inquiry; it does not certify an investment or remove loss risk. The useful output is a clearer understanding of the assumptions, alternatives, and reasons for a decision. 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 | Which claim matters most? |
| Case-specific constraint | The word fintech covers many activities. Verify the product's actual function and use qualified counsel to investigate applicable obligations instead of inferring permissions from a category label. |
| Record to inspect | Review a data-flow diagram, authorized integration tests, customer references, contracts, and specialist assessments of the operating model. Keep software features separate from regulated activities. |
| Comparison to preserve | Compare the defined reconciliation workflow with the current process. Clarify which party controls accounts, approvals, and any movement of money. |
| Unresolved case question | What activity does the company perform? |
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.
- Which claim matters most?
- What record supports it?
- What evidence contradicts it?
- Who can independently verify it?
- What remains unknown?
Questions specific to this scenario
- What activity does the company perform?
- Who controls approvals?
- Which dependency could block rollout?
Review a data-flow diagram, authorized integration tests, customer references, contracts, and specialist assessments of the operating model. Keep software features separate from regulated activities.
A concrete next test
Trace the product's actual reconciliation workflow and identify which party can approve or move money, if anyone. Ask qualified advisers to assess the defined activity. A category label, integration demo, or customer reference does not establish the permissions needed for a different operating role.
Interpret the result
A diligence checklist organizes inquiry; it does not certify an investment or remove loss risk. The useful output is a clearer understanding of the assumptions, alternatives, and reasons for a decision.
Compare the defined reconciliation workflow with the current process. Clarify which party controls accounts, approvals, and any movement of money.
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.