The Close Round Rubric — how investors score a seed-stage dataroom

Every module gets one integer. 1 to 10.

10/10

Sequoia-grade

Investor-ready. A partner forwards it internally. No edit required before send.

7–9/10

Strong

Substantive content with a clear gap — typically a missing source, a missing number, or one bullet that's generic.

4–6/10

Generic

Reads like every other deck — boilerplate, category-level claims, no proof.

1–3/10

Unsalvageable

Buzzword soup or absent entirely. Section needs a rewrite from inputs, not edits.

When the source material is silent on a module, the framework scores it 1 and emits a NEEDS INPUT instead of inventing one. Nothing is hallucinated to fill a gap — silence is a finding, not a defect.

Ten modules, ten rubrics.

Each module below shows the question the framework asks, the job it does for the investor, and the integer-by-integer scoring criteria. Deep-link a module by its anchor —/rubric#module-traction.

One-liner

Answers 'what does this company actually do?' in five seconds, before the partner closes the tab.

What the framework asks

Evaluate this company's one-liner — 6–12 words that name the product, the buyer, and the category so a stranger understands it in under three seconds.

Scoring · 1 to 10

Score 10 = 6–12 words, instantly clear, names product + buyer + category, earns a second read. Score 7 = clear but generic or one word too long. Score 4 = buzzword-heavy or requires explanation. Score 1 = marketing fluff, no one understands what it is or who buys it. The tenOfTen field is the rewritten 6–12 word one-liner and must differ from the input.

#module-one-liner

Investment thesis

Answers 'why is this venture-scale?' — 3–5 specific, non-obvious reasons the round gets returned.

What the framework asks

Evaluate the investment thesis — 3–5 bullets, each a sharp, non-obvious, distinct reason this is a venture-scale opportunity (moat, timing, distribution edge, unfair team, pricing power).

Scoring · 1 to 10

Score 10 = 3–5 one-sentence bullets a Sequoia partner would forward internally, each non-obvious, distinct, and defended. Score 7 = reasonable but one is generic or repeats another. Score 4 = category-level claims only ('AI is huge'). Score 1 = no thesis; marketing language only. The tenOfTen field is the rewritten 3–5 bullets and must differ from the input.

#module-investment-thesis

Company overview

Answers 'why noticed this problem first?' — the founder-insight origin story, not the mission statement.

What the framework asks

Evaluate the company overview — a 60–90 word company description, a 2–3 sentence differentiation, and 3–6 key customers/partners.

Scoring · 1 to 10

Score 10 = all three parts present, ≤90-word description, real differentiation, credible named customers. Score 7 = clear but generic differentiation or thin customer list. Score 4 = boilerplate 'we believe AI should be accessible' language. Score 1 = no differentiated story. The tenOfTen field is the rewritten three-part overview and must differ from the input.

#module-company-overview

Product

Answers 'what gets shipped and why is it different?' — what it is, how it works, what the obvious alternative is.

What the framework asks

Evaluate the product section — a 30–50 word product overview, 3–6 product categories, and 3–6 product visuals.

Scoring · 1 to 10

Score 10 = clear what + how + different in one read, 3–6 real capability groups, concrete visuals. Score 7 = clear what, weak differentiation. Score 4 = feature list without a clear product story. Score 1 = jargon soup, unclear what gets shipped. The tenOfTen field is the rewritten product section and must differ from the input.

#module-product

Market

Answers 'how big and why now is it accessible?' — defensible bottom-up sizing plus the trends that favor this company.

What the framework asks

Evaluate the market section — TAM (1 sentence + $), a 20–40 word category description, 3–5 competitors, and 30–50 words of competitive positioning.

Scoring · 1 to 10

Score 10 = defensible bottom-up TAM with a number, clear category, 3–5 named competitors, sharp positioning. Score 7 = numbers present but weak methodology or soft positioning. Score 4 = top-down 'Gartner says $100B' only. Score 1 = no numbers or meaningless TAM math. The tenOfTen field is the rewritten four-part market section and must differ from the input.

#module-market

Business model

Answers 'who pays, how much, what are the unit economics?' — pricing, buyer, gross-margin direction.

What the framework asks

Evaluate the business model — a 20–30 word pricing model, 2–4 customer segments, and a 1–2 sentence revenue driver.

Scoring · 1 to 10

Score 10 = specific pricing, 2–4 named buyer types, clear core revenue engine. Score 7 = pricing clear, revenue driver vague. Score 4 = 'subscription model' without numbers. Score 1 = no pricing, no buyer, no economics. The tenOfTen field is the rewritten three-part business model and must differ from the input.

#module-business-model

Traction

Answers 'what's working?' — revenue, growth rate, retention, named logos. Every number sourced.

What the framework asks

Evaluate the traction section — 4–8 customers, 2–5 partnerships, 2–5 integrations, and 2–4 growth signals, all specific and credible.

Scoring · 1 to 10

Score 10 = named customers + partnerships + integrations + concrete growth signals, all sourced. Score 7 = customers and logos but thin momentum. Score 4 = vanity metrics only. Score 1 = no traction data or unsourced claims. If traction is absent, tenOfTen must be 'NEEDS INPUT: <specific data>'. Otherwise the tenOfTen field is the rewritten traction section and must differ from the input.

#module-traction

Founder / team

Answers 'why this team?' — concrete founder-market fit, prior wins, key hires already in seats.

What the framework asks

Evaluate the founder/team section AND extract the founding team as structured cards. The prose `tenOfTen` should be ≤150 words: the why-us story tying founder experience to this specific problem, with each founder's role, relevant background, and a concrete track-record fact (an exit, a scaled company, a major product, a notable achievement). The `founders` array is one object per FOUNDER. For each founder, pull only what the source actually states — never invent. Leave role/bio empty and omit linkedinUrl/email when the source is silent.

Scoring · 1 to 10

Score 10 = concrete founder-market fit, relevant background, and a named track record per founder. Score 7 = strong bios but why-us implicit. Score 4 = generic 'seasoned entrepreneurs'. Score 1 = no bios or no credibility signal.

#module-founder-team

Why now

Answers 'why does this exist now, not two years ago?' — a named catalyst (model release, regulation, behavior shift).

What the framework asks

Evaluate the why-now / market-validation section — a 20–40 word industry trend, 2–3 concrete market events, and a 20–40 word timing argument.

Scoring · 1 to 10

Score 10 = a sharp structural trend + 2–3 real named events (model release, regulation, platform shift) + timing tied to the company. Score 7 = plausible but soft, or thin events. Score 4 = 'AI is everywhere'. Score 1 = no why-now. The tenOfTen field is the rewritten three-part why-now and must differ from the input.

#module-why-now

Press / credibility

Answers 'what social proof is verifiable?' — tier-one press, operator-grade advisors, partnerships.

What the framework asks

Evaluate the press / credibility section — media coverage, industry mentions, case studies, testimonials, partnerships, awards, analyst references. Facts only; flag paid or contributor-network placements.

Scoring · 1 to 10

Score 10 = tier-one press + named operator-advisors + partnerships, all verifiable. Score 7 = two of the three. Score 4 = logos-only with no context. Score 1 = no press, no advisors, no partnerships. If absent, tenOfTen must be 'NEEDS INPUT: <specific data>'. Otherwise the tenOfTen field is the rewritten press/credibility section and must differ from the input.

#module-press-credibility

Every module gets one integer. 1 to 10.

10/10

Sequoia-grade

Investor-ready. A partner forwards it internally. No edit required before send.

7–9/10

Strong

Substantive content with a clear gap — typically a missing source, a missing number, or one bullet that's generic.

4–6/10

Generic

Reads like every other deck — boilerplate, category-level claims, no proof.

1–3/10

Unsalvageable

Buzzword soup or absent entirely. Section needs a rewrite from inputs, not edits.

Ten modules, ten rubrics.

Each module below shows the question the framework asks, the job it does for the investor, and the integer-by-integer scoring criteria. Deep-link a module by its anchor —/rubric#module-traction.

One-liner

Answers 'what does this company actually do?' in five seconds, before the partner closes the tab.

What the framework asks

Evaluate this company's one-liner — 6–12 words that name the product, the buyer, and the category so a stranger understands it in under three seconds.

Scoring · 1 to 10

#module-one-liner

Investment thesis

Answers 'why is this venture-scale?' — 3–5 specific, non-obvious reasons the round gets returned.

What the framework asks

Evaluate the investment thesis — 3–5 bullets, each a sharp, non-obvious, distinct reason this is a venture-scale opportunity (moat, timing, distribution edge, unfair team, pricing power).

Scoring · 1 to 10

#module-investment-thesis

Company overview

Answers 'why noticed this problem first?' — the founder-insight origin story, not the mission statement.

What the framework asks

Evaluate the company overview — a 60–90 word company description, a 2–3 sentence differentiation, and 3–6 key customers/partners.

Scoring · 1 to 10

#module-company-overview

Product

Answers 'what gets shipped and why is it different?' — what it is, how it works, what the obvious alternative is.

What the framework asks

Evaluate the product section — a 30–50 word product overview, 3–6 product categories, and 3–6 product visuals.

Scoring · 1 to 10

#module-product

Market

Answers 'how big and why now is it accessible?' — defensible bottom-up sizing plus the trends that favor this company.

What the framework asks

Evaluate the market section — TAM (1 sentence + $), a 20–40 word category description, 3–5 competitors, and 30–50 words of competitive positioning.

Scoring · 1 to 10

#module-market

Business model

Answers 'who pays, how much, what are the unit economics?' — pricing, buyer, gross-margin direction.

What the framework asks

Evaluate the business model — a 20–30 word pricing model, 2–4 customer segments, and a 1–2 sentence revenue driver.

Scoring · 1 to 10

#module-business-model

Traction

Answers 'what's working?' — revenue, growth rate, retention, named logos. Every number sourced.

What the framework asks

Evaluate the traction section — 4–8 customers, 2–5 partnerships, 2–5 integrations, and 2–4 growth signals, all specific and credible.

Scoring · 1 to 10

#module-traction

Founder / team

Answers 'why this team?' — concrete founder-market fit, prior wins, key hires already in seats.

What the framework asks

Scoring · 1 to 10

#module-founder-team

Why now

Answers 'why does this exist now, not two years ago?' — a named catalyst (model release, regulation, behavior shift).

What the framework asks

Evaluate the why-now / market-validation section — a 20–40 word industry trend, 2–3 concrete market events, and a 20–40 word timing argument.

Scoring · 1 to 10

#module-why-now

Press / credibility

Answers 'what social proof is verifiable?' — tier-one press, operator-grade advisors, partnerships.

What the framework asks

Scoring · 1 to 10

#module-press-credibility

How investors score a seed-stage dataroom.

Every module gets one integer. 1 to 10.

Ten modules, ten rubrics.

One-liner

Investment thesis

Company overview

Product

Market

Business model

Traction

Founder / team

Why now

Press / credibility

Score your dataroom against the rubric — free.

How investors score a seed-stage dataroom.

Every module gets one integer. 1 to 10.

Ten modules, ten rubrics.

One-liner

Investment thesis

Company overview

Product

Market

Business model

Traction

Founder / team

Why now

Press / credibility

Score your dataroom against the rubric — free.