Initial company research
Compile founder, company, market and competitor context from approved sources.
Screening / Research
A first look that follows your investment logic.
Build research and screening systems around the questions your partners ask, the evidence they trust and the formats they use to compare opportunities.
01 / The opportunity
Your screening criteria are not a universal score.
Different firms place weight on different founder histories, market dynamics and business-model characteristics. We start from your actual rubric instead of forcing a generic qualification model.
Custom engagement area / not an off-the-shelf product
02 / How this workflow really operates
A standard score rarely captures what makes a partner lean in.
Early reviews are shaped by stage, sector, prior investments, exceptions and different partner preferences. A tailored first-look system should organize comparable evidence without concealing why an opportunity was advanced or declined.
Design question / 01
Which questions must a first-look brief answer?
Design question / 02
What should trigger a deeper review or a pass?
Design question / 03
Which claims require independent confirmation?
03 / What a fund might commission
Designed for a defined job.
The specific model, agent behavior, integrations and sources would be agreed for the engagement. These are illustrative applications of the approach.
Firm-specific screening
Structure early reviews around your investment thesis and documented criteria.
Comparable opportunity research
Give investment teams consistent, reviewable briefs without obscuring judgment.
04 / System anatomy
Inputs, intelligence, oversight, output.
- Fund contextApproved inputs + process
- ModelDefined reasoning + output rules
- AgentScoped task execution
- Investor reviewEvidence, approval + action
The fund provides / to be scoped
Relevant context
- Screening rubrics and investment thesis
- Prior decisions and approved examples
- Available CRM and research sources
The system produces / to be validated
Reviewable outputs
- Structured first-look briefs
- Sourced evidence and open questions
- Human-reviewed screening summaries
05 / What the fund would see
A useful system produces something reviewable.
The proposed output below is an illustrative interface structure, not evidence of a built deployment. Actual deliverables depend on scoping and evaluation.
Illustrative output / not a product screenshot
First-look investment brief
Designed to retain the reasoning trail from inputs through investor review.
Example labels only · not an actual investment recommendationSONEXA LABS / EVALUATEEXAMPLE / NOT LIVE DATA
01INVESTMENT THESIS FIT / REVIEW REQUIRED
02Company and founder overview with source references
03Market map, competitors and unresolved questions
04Reasons to investigate further, not an automated verdict
Requires fund review
06 / Example engagement
Illustrative scenario · not a completed client project
What a tailored engagement could look like
A multi-partner fund uses different templates for the first pass. A commissioned model organizes approved information against a shared rubric and flags unanswered questions for the investing team.
07 / Design boundaries
Specific scope. Clear review.
The model’s responsibilities, evidence requirements and approvals should be explicit before the build begins.
Accountable person
Principal / Associate / Investment lead
Review boundary: The investing team reviews sources, challenges assumptions and determines next steps.
Why tailored: The commissioned model is evaluated against the firm’s own screening rubric, not a universal venture score.
Separate source facts from model inferences.
01Preserve analyst commentary and exceptions.
02Require investor approval before updating investment status.
03
08 / Related areas
Connected parts of the fund.
A working conversation
Have a workflow worth building around?
The right first step is a conversation about your existing process, your data and the result your team needs.