The proposition
Our summary of the deck
Standard Treasury's public deck set out three things: a funding request towards UK banking authorisation, a 24-month budget for spending, and a slide of startup logos with references to soft commitments.
The evidence
From the deck
As the report records the public deck, with the slide it cites. Each line links to the same slide in the Slide-level Evidence Explorer.
- Requested $10 million towards UK banking authorisation on slide 13.Slide 13 of the Standard Treasury deck, in the Slide-level Evidence Explorer
- The 24-month budget shown on slide 14 was approximately $9 million.Slide 14 of the Standard Treasury deck, in the Slide-level Evidence Explorer
- Slide 25 contains startup logos and references to soft commitments.Slide 25 of the Standard Treasury deck, in the Slide-level Evidence Explorer
The commercial distinction
GTM Right's reading
Two figures in the deck answer two different questions. The request is what the company asked investors for. The budget is the plan for what would be spent over 24 months. They are not the same figure, and neither can stand in for the other.
The request and the spending plan serve different purposes. Neither should be silently substituted for the other.
The logos answer a third question: who else is interested. Startup logos presented with references to soft commitments show prospective demand. They do not, on their own, show who has committed to what.
Slide 25 contains startup logos and references to soft commitments; the logos do not establish five separately confirmed binding commitments.
The unanswered question
Not shown
What the public slides leave open is the substance behind the commitments:
- Which of the companies shown had committed, and to what?
- Was any commitment binding, and under which conditions?
- Had any of it become paid use?
A commitment can be important evidence, but the document must say what has actually been promised, by whom and under which conditions.
Why it matters
For founders
A founder raising money often presents all three together: the amount, the plan and the names of interested customers or partners. Each is legitimate. Trouble starts when one is read as another, a budget taken for the ask or a logo taken for a contract.
That is a useful distinction for any founder presenting prospective demand, design partners or letters of interest.
State the amount you are asking for, and separately what it pays for and over what period. Then say, for every name you show, exactly what that name has agreed to.
The next test
Your test
For each name I show as support, what exactly has been promised, by whom and on what conditions?
Write one line beside every logo, letter of intent or soft commitment in your deck: what was promised, by whom and on what conditions. Where you cannot write that line, you have interest rather than a commitment, and the next test is to ask that buyer for a commitment with terms.
Enthusiastic interviewees but no purchase: test willingness to commit.
The research's questions this case raises
- What customer action has actually occurred?Was there an interview, waitlist sign-up, pilot agreement, activation, repeat use, payment or renewal? Each action has a different meaning. Which one do we currently have?
- What is still unproven, and what is the smallest useful next test?Rather than filling a missing slide with assumptions, identify the single uncertainty most likely to change the decision to build, sell, spend or raise.
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