Skip to the case files
From the seed deck research

Evidence Case Files

Four public startup decks, each read for what its evidence showed, what it left open and the test another founder can run in their own business.

Each case file takes one deck the research reads closely and follows a single commercial distinction through it: what the startup presented, what its public deck disclosed, what that evidence demonstrated, what it could not establish, why it matters to another founder and one test to run in your own business.

Read the case filesRead the full report
Six parts in every case file
  1. The proposition. What the startup presented.
  2. The evidence. What the public deck disclosed.
  3. The commercial distinction. What the evidence demonstrated.
  4. The unanswered question. What the public presentation could not establish.
  5. Why it matters. The lesson another founder can apply.
  6. The next test. One practical question for your own business.
The case files0%
4 selected decks

The case files

Each case follows one distinction, in the order the report discusses them.

  1. Case file 1 of 4Slide 7Selected case: example only

    Flowtab: sales activity versus revenue captured

    A busy traction slide can show that people are buying through your product. On its own, it cannot show what your business kept.

    Read the case file: Flowtab

  2. Case file 2 of 4Slides 6 and 8Selected case: example only

    Bliss.ai: paying customers and unresolved commercial economics

    Paying customers answer the first commercial question. They also raise the next ones: how long customers stay, whether they buy again and what each one cost to win.

    Read the case file: Bliss.ai

  3. Case file 3 of 4Slides 7 and 8Selected case: example only

    Castle: growth in units versus realised revenue and retention

    A rising count and a price suggest what a business could earn. Billing, collection and retention show what it does earn.

    Read the case file: Castle

  4. Case file 4 of 4Slides 13, 14 and 25Selected case: example only

    Standard Treasury: funding request, spending plan and commercial commitments

    The amount you ask for, the plan for spending it and the support you point to are three different statements. Each should say exactly what it is.

    Read the case file: Standard Treasury
Reading a case file

How a case file is laid out

Every part of a case file says whose words it holds: the deck's, the report's or GTM Right's.

  1. The proposition. What the startup presented. Our summary of the deck
  2. The evidence. What the public deck disclosed. From the deck
  3. The commercial distinction. What the evidence demonstrated. GTM Right's reading
  4. The unanswered question. What the public presentation could not establish. Not shown
  5. Why it matters. The lesson another founder can apply. For founders
  6. The next test. One practical question for your own business. Your test
Our summary of the deck
GTM Right's short account of what the deck put forward. It adds nothing the deck did not disclose.
From the deck
What the public copy shows, as the report records it, with the slide it cites.
GTM Right's reading
How GTM Right reads the evidence. It is an interpretation, not a statement by the company.
Not shown
Not settled by the public copy. That does not mean the company lacked it.
For founders
What another founder can take from the case. It is guidance, not a finding about this company.
Your test
One practical question and action for your own business.
Selected cases

Why these four decks

A smaller set of historical decks was read as illustrations, chosen on purpose to show particular issues: the difference between user counts and revenue, acquisition costs beside sales, retention, the meaning of soft commitments and what a fundraising story can and cannot settle. None of them enters a percentage in this report.

Sources and limits

What a case file is, and is not

An illustration, not a verdict. A case file shows what one public deck disclosed and the commercial question it raises. It is not a judgement of the company, its team or its prospects, and it says nothing about what later happened to the company.

Selected cases. Historical illustration only, intentionally chosen, excluded from all headline sample percentages. Their deck content is not evidence that a later adverse company event occurred.

Figures as presented. Figures were transcribed from public slides and classified according to rules. They are presentation disclosures rather than company accounts.

Privately held evidence. Public decks may be shortened, updated, rewritten, redacted or different from what was shared privately. A missing revenue or retention figure is a statement about public disclosure, not proof that the company had no such information.

Deck rights stay with their owners. The report cites deck pages and slide references and reproduces no deck images. A public URL is not permission to republish images or entire presentations.

  • Research method. AI-assisted methods were used to read and classify the publicly available presentations. The classifications were not independently second-coded. The research reports what published deck material disclosed, with source references and definitions provided.

How the research was doneEvidence definitionsSource index for cited decks

Related reading