Private Company First-Pass Toolkit
Collection
Open evidence-first worksheets and browser tools for private-company screening and diligence. Maintained by DDScore.ai. • 8 items • Updated
id stringclasses 1
value | review_area stringclasses 1
value | claim_a stringclasses 1
value | claim_b_or_observed_fact stringclasses 1
value | why_they_may_conflict stringclasses 1
value | evidence_needed stringclasses 1
value | question_for_management stringclasses 1
value | materiality stringclasses 1
value | status stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C-01 | Financial plan and go-to-market | Enterprise revenue triples in 12 months | The current plan shows a nine-month sales cycle and no additional sales capacity until month seven | The model may not allow enough time or capacity for the forecasted contracts | Pipeline by stage; conversion history; sales-capacity plan; monthly model | Which signed or stage-qualified opportunities can close inside the forecast window, and what evidence supports their probabilities? | High | Open |
Private-company contradiction log template
This dataset is a reusable worksheet for recording conflicts between claims, operating assumptions, supplied evidence, and observed facts during a private-company first-pass review.
The template is intended for investor screening, IC preparation, advisory work, accelerator review, or founder self-review. It helps convert a vague concern into a testable management question and a named evidence request.
Files
contradiction-log-template.csv: six blank working rows, each seeded with a common review area;synthetic-example.csv: one completely fictional worked example showing the expected level of specificity.
Fields
| Field | Use |
|---|---|
id |
Stable reference for the open item |
review_area |
Market, traction, product, team, financial, or risk context |
claim_a |
The first claim, copied without strengthening it |
claim_b_or_observed_fact |
The connected claim or constraining fact |
why_they_may_conflict |
A neutral explanation of the possible conflict |
evidence_needed |
The document, data, or test that could resolve it |
question_for_management |
One answerable question for the next discussion |
materiality |
High, Medium, or Low |
status |
Open, Explained, or Confirmed |
Suggested workflow
- Extract claims from the pitch deck, model, notes, and supporting files.
- Connect assumptions that depend on each other across sections.
- Add supplied or public facts that constrain those claims.
- Rank possible conflicts by their ability to change the investment or operating case.
- Name the evidence and management question that could resolve each item.
- Keep unresolved items next to the eventual memo or decision record.
Explained means that a coherent explanation has been recorded. Confirmed
means that supporting evidence has also been reviewed. Neither status says that
the reviewer must agree with the underlying plan.
Tool context
This open template is maintained as an educational resource by DDScore.ai, a Finnish product that structures private-company materials across 12 due diligence dimensions and surfaces strengths, risks, missing evidence, and open questions. DDScore supports human judgement and full due diligence rather than replacing either.
License
CC BY 4.0. Attribution suggestion: “Private-company contradiction log template by DDScore.ai.”
- Downloads last month
- 57