Scouts
What should a scout verify before introducing a deep tech startup?
a deep tech startup: Verify fit and basic facts before introducing a company, while remaining clear about what has not been investigated.
Verify fit and basic facts before introducing a company, while remaining clear about what has not been investigated. Confirm the founder's permission, the current fundraising situation, and the reason the opportunity might match the fund. Avoid promising investment authority the scout does not have.
Start with the decision
Prepare a short claim-and-source note. Separate direct observations, founder statements, and open questions. Ask the fund which evidence is necessary for an initial screen rather than overcollecting confidential material.
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. A screen is a filter for a useful conversation, not a completed diligence process. A transparent open question is preferable to a confident claim that the scout cannot support. 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 | Is the company within mandate? |
| Case-specific constraint | A successful laboratory test does not establish production reliability or buyer adoption. Keep technical feasibility, manufacturability, customer qualification, and commercial commitment separate. |
| Record to inspect | Request dated test protocols, repeatability results, independent technical references, and a milestone budget. Distinguish a customer's evaluation agreement from an order. |
| Comparison to preserve | 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. |
| Unresolved case question | What test can be reproduced? |
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.
- Is the company within mandate?
- Is the founder seeking this introduction?
- What has been directly observed?
- What remains unverified?
- Who makes the next decision?
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
A screen is a filter for a useful conversation, not a completed diligence process. A transparent open question is preferable to a confident claim that the scout cannot support.
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.