Method · Reading

Reading a pre-seed pitch deck, claim by claim

Reading a pre-seed pitch deck means treating it as a document of claims: for each claim that carries your reading, find the supporting document behind it, give it a provenance status, then draw out the question to ask on the first call. This page describes these four steps as the pre-diligence checklist and the Flaynn provenance grid publish them, then works through them on a fictional example.

By Sirven Flaynn Ouamba, founder and president of Flaynn

Published on 5 November 2026 · Version 1.0

What does it mean to read a deck?

A deck is a document of claims: « €2bn market », « MRR of €12k », « We are raising €600k ». The company writes them. Reading them means establishing where each one comes from: the status of a piece of information depends on its origin, not on how plausible it looks or on the documents around it.

Before a call, this reading sorts what is established, what needs to be asked for and what needs to be discussed. The four steps follow the columns of the checklist: claim, supporting document, status, call question.

Step 1: which claims your reading rests on?

Start with the figures that your reading rests on: revenue, growth, amount raised. Then sort the other claims by pillar. The Flaynn methodology scores five pillars out of 20 from fixed criteria; the checklist adds a legal and register block.

Step 1: which claims your reading rests on?
Pillar	What the methodology reads	Common claims in the checklist
Market	Market size, quality of the problem, clarity of the target, competition, timing	« €2bn market », « No direct competitor »
Product	From problem to solution, differentiation, product-market fit, technical maturity	« Product in production », « Proprietary technology »
Traction	Idea, pre-seed, MVP: interviews, signed letters of intent, waiting list, partnerships	« MRR of €12k », « Three letters of intent »
Team	Relevant experience, full-time or part-time, distinctive advantage, complementarity	« Full-time team », « Solo founder, CTO being recruited »
Finance	12-month milestones, detailed use of funds, consistency and realism of the plan	« We are raising €600k », « 18 months of runway »

At pre-seed, the published weighting gives 30 points out of 100 to the team, 25 to market, 20 to product, 15 to finance and 10 to traction. Having no revenue is not, in itself, a negative signal there.

Step 2: which supporting document underpins each claim?

For each claim you keep, find the corresponding supporting document. If it is missing, ask for it before the call rather than during it. The checklist gives this document line by line: for letters of intent, signed and named letters, with volume and conditions; for revenue, the filed annual accounts.

An attached document lets you check for yourself, for example by recalculating a figure. It does not make the data verified at Flaynn. It feeds the reading and can bring out an inconsistency, but it does not change the status of a figure.

Some claims have no Flaynn status. For « Committed co-founders », the supporting document is the shareholders' agreement, and Flaynn gives no legal reading.

Step 3: what status should each claim get?

The Flaynn provenance grid says where a piece of information comes from: three provenance labels, two reading signals.

Step 3: what status should each claim get?
Marker	Definition	What it does not cover
Verified (provenance)	Consistent with a register source. Neither an audit nor a banking, legal, accounting or human check.	An attached file, a bank export, a figure from the deck, the market
Declared (provenance)	Entered in the submission form or written in the uploaded document, page cited, and taken as is, without cross-checking.	A figure the analysis engine estimates, or spots without a cited page; any confirmation, even partial
Inferred (provenance)	Produced by the Flaynn Intelligence analysis engine: a reading to confirm, never a fact.	An established fact, a prediction, investment advice
Missing (reading signal)	Data expected and not provided in the dossier.	Proof that the information does not exist, or a flaw in the project
Inconsistent (reading signal)	Two elements of the dossier contradict each other.	A proven error, or a ruling between the two versions: Flaynn names the difference without saying which one is right

Verified has a narrow scope: the legal identity and the filed revenue of a company identified by the company number entered in the form (SIREN in France), when its name in the register contains the declared name and the register is that of its country. A company found only by its name, or by a SIREN picked up from the text of the dossier, keeps inferred data, to be confirmed. A market element is never verified, even when sourced.

A status never moves up: a declared or inferred piece of information does not become verified. Provenance is set on the blocks that carry one, not on every line. For a deal you import, the checklist mostly shows inferred: the import has no figures typed into a form, and the company number (SIREN in France) is optional there.

Step 4: which question should you ask on the first call?

The grid publishes the following order:

1. Start with the inconsistencies: each one becomes a question. Which of the two versions is the right one, and why they differ.
2. For the declared or inferred figures that your reading rests on, the supporting document that would establish them is the first thing to ask for.
3. Treat the inferred as a working hypothesis. A runway estimate or a market reference point is discussed with the founder; it is not cited as a fact.
4. Turn each piece of missing data into a request, before the call rather than during it.
5. Start from the call questions in the reading and add your own.

During the call, start with the differences between two documents on the amount sought, revenue or milestones: these are the answers you can cross-check afterwards.

A fictional example, from start to finish

This example is fictional. It takes up the five fictional examples published in the provenance grid, without a company name, read here as a single deal submitted with its form, and sets against each one the supporting document and the question from the checklist.

A fictional example, from start to finish
What the dossier says	Supporting document	Status	Question for the first call
Round: €800,000 in the deck, €600,000 in the form	The same amount in the deck, the form and the forecast	Inconsistent: the difference is named, without saying which version is right	Two amounts are in circulation: which is the real target?
MRR of €12,000, entered in the form or read on page 7 of the deck	Month-by-month billing export, period stated	Declared. Spotted in the deck without a cited page, the same figure would be inferred	What MRR for the last closed month, and how many customers make it up?
2025 revenue	Filed annual accounts	Verified for the €84,000 filed with the register, if the company is identified by the company number entered in the form (SIREN in France) and its name in the register contains the declared name. The figure written in the deck stays declared, even if it is consistent	If it differs: why does the deck differ from the published accounts?
Runway estimated at 11 months	Monthly cash-flow plan, burn, hiring assumptions	Inferred: Flaynn estimate, never declared	What is the burn at full team size, and in which month do you hit zero?
Number of paying customers not provided	To ask for before the call	Missing: the data is listed, nothing is deduced from it	The second half of the MRR question: how many customers make it up?

The rows follow the order of the grid: the inconsistency first, then the figures to back with a supporting document, then the hypothesis to discuss; the missing data is asked for before the call. A round is never described as consistent with the register: published capital does not measure an amount raised.

What this reading does not replace

Verified does not mean that the accounts have been audited, that a bank statement has been consulted, that a contract, articles of association or a shareholders' agreement have been legally checked, or that a person has re-read the data. Verified data is not necessarily up to date or favourable. The reading replaces neither an accounting, legal or banking audit nor your own checks.

At most three inconsistencies are flagged per deal: if none is flagged, that does not prove the deal is consistent. The register contains only what has been filed in it. An inference can be wrong.

Before deciding, go back over the checklist's blind spots, for example no founder vesting, unit economics never quantified, a deck and a dossier that contradict each other. For each one, note whether the dossier answers it with a supporting document, with a simple declaration, or not at all. What stays declared is still for you, your group or your advisers to verify.

Further reading: the Flaynn provenance grid, the pre-diligence methodology and the pre-seed pre-diligence checklist. Flaynn Intelligence applies this grid to every deal you import.

This page is an aid to reading a deal, not investment advice. Flaynn does not say whether to invest and gives no legal, accounting, tax, financial or investment advice. The final checks and the decision remain yours, your group's or your advisers'.