This is a full worked example on a fictional company, "Northbridge Analytics", built to the same depth and structure as a real Full Report, so you can see exactly what you'd get before uploading anything. Every score, quote, and fix below is illustrative, not a template your own report will echo.
Full diligence report
A promising early-stage story that stalls on execution detail: no cap table anywhere in the deck, a financial model that stops six months short of the horizon the ask itself claims, and a traction number with no comparison point. Individually fixable. Currently reads as under-prepared.
Full Report · Page 1 of 41 · Cover
Every section a real Full Report covers, in the order it's delivered. This sample fully works the sections marked "Unlocked" below to actual Full Report depth. Visual analysis is bonus content shown when available, outside the fixed 41-page count.
Visual analysis only runs when a deck's page images were captured at upload, and the evidence appendix isn't live yet in the real product either, both are marked honestly here rather than faked for this sample.
Investors spend under 2 minutes on a deck and form a judgement in the first minute. This score is built on that same research, not a guess. See the methodology.
No cap table or ownership breakdown appears anywhere in the deck.
Model stops at Month 12 with no burn or runway, despite an 18-month ask.
Single top-down TAM figure, no bottom-up SAM/SOM calculation.
Amount stated but not broken into tranches or tied to milestones.
Real growth number, but shown with no comparison baseline.
Relevant prior exit exists but is buried in an appendix footnote.
Credible channel logic, largely unproven at scale so far.
Clear, specific differentiation with working product evidence.
This is a one-sentence diagnosis per category. The full page-length write-up for each is below (pages 6–13).
A B2B SaaS platform that ingests a manufacturer's supplier and purchase-order data to flag procurement risk and pricing anomalies before they hit the P&L.
Every figure on this page is drawn directly from the deck uploaded. Nothing here is inferred beyond what's actually stated.
Northbridge Analytics Ltd was confirmed on the UK companies register, incorporated March 2022, consistent with the deck's stated founding year. The stated live product at northbridgeanalytics.io resolves to a working application with a login screen, consistent with the deck's traction claims.
The £650,000 pre-seed raise (SAFE plus friends and family, closed February 2023) could not be independently verified through public funding databases, which is expected as SAFE rounds of this size are rarely disclosed publicly.
No adverse media, litigation, or director disqualification was found for either named founder. Neither founder's claimed prior roles could be independently corroborated on public professional profiles at the depth the deck describes, worth a founder's own follow-up rather than treated as a discrepancy, since limited public profile completeness is common and not itself evidence against a claim.
No public news coverage or press mentions were found under this name, typical for a company at this stage and profile.
UK companies register · Company website (northbridgeanalytics.io) · Public professional profiles · General news search
There is no cap table anywhere in this deck, not on the ask slide, not in the appendix, not even as a simple ownership pie chart. The deck states a £750,000 raise at a £4m pre-money valuation on slide 9, but a reader has no way to see what that costs the founders, how the two existing SAFE holders convert, or what a new investor's resulting stake looks like. This is the single lowest-scoring category in the deck and the most commonly checked item by a seed investor in the first pass, before they read anything else about the business. It is also one of the cheapest fixes available: a working cap table already exists in the founders' own records, it simply hasn't made it into the deck. See Gap 1 for the specific fix.
Slide 8 projects revenue and headcount forward to Month 12 only, with no burn rate, no cash balance, and no explicit runway figure. This directly contradicts slide 9, which pitches the £750,000 raise as funding "the next 18 months of growth". An investor reconciling those two slides will notice the six-month gap within the first read, before they've formed any other opinion about the business. The underlying model almost certainly exists in more detail internally than what's shown; the fix here is presentation, not new analysis. Financials scores the second-lowest of the eight categories, behind only the cap table, and the two issues compound each other: neither shows what the round actually buys.
Slide 6 cites a single top-down figure, a £4.2bn global procurement software TAM by 2027 attributed to Gartner, with no SAM or SOM breakdown underneath it and no connection back to Northbridge's actual go-to-market motion (UK mid-market manufacturers, sold direct and via ERP partners). A £4.2bn global figure says nothing about what's realistically reachable in the first 24 months on a £750k raise, and investors increasingly discount top-down-only TAM slides on sight. The deck's own customer base (14 mid-market UK manufacturers) is a far more credible starting point for a bottom-up calculation than the global figure currently shown, and that data already exists inside the company.
Slide 9 states the number clearly ("We are raising £750,000") but the entire use-of-funds explanation is a single phrase, "to accelerate growth". There is no breakdown by function, no milestone tied to the spend, and no stated runway. Investors fund a plan, not a figure, and an ask this undifferentiated makes it genuinely hard for a reader to judge whether £750k is the right amount, too much, or too little for what's being attempted. This is a fast fix relative to its score impact: the founders almost certainly have a hiring and spending plan already, it simply needs to be surfaced on this slide rather than assumed to be self-evident.
Slide 4 states real, specific traction: MRR grown from £4,000 to £15,000 over six months, 18% month-on-month, across 14 paying customers. That's a genuinely strong underlying number for a seed-stage supply chain SaaS company, which is exactly why it's frustrating to see it presented with no comparison point. Without a benchmark, an investor has to supply their own frame for whether 18% MoM is exceptional or unremarkable, and that frame is usually harsher than the true picture. This category scores Fair rather than Weak because the number itself is credible and specific, not vague, it simply isn't yet doing the persuasive work it could.
The team slide lists two co-founders and a stated headcount of six, with a one-line bio each for Priya Anand (CEO) and Marcus Whelan (CTO). Domain relevance is reasonably well evidenced for a company this early. The clearest missed opportunity is Marcus's prior company, Fielo, a logistics data infrastructure business acquired by Xelanta Logistics in 2021, real, relevant, and de-risking information that is currently mentioned only in an appendix footnote on slide 17 rather than on the team slide itself. Prior successful exits are one of the highest-weighted signals investors use to assess founder quality at seed stage; most readers of this deck will never reach slide 17 to see it.
Slide 5 describes a two-pronged channel strategy: direct outbound to procurement leads at mid-market manufacturers, plus a partner motion through ERP resellers (SAP and NetSuite are both named). The logic is sound and matches the product's actual integration points, which is more coherent than most seed-stage GTM slides. The weakness is evidential rather than strategic: only one ERP partner conversation is described as "in progress" rather than signed, so the second channel is currently a stated intention rather than a proven one. This scores Fair rather than Good specifically because the strategy is credible but the partner channel hasn't yet produced a customer.
This is the strongest category in the deck. Slides 3 and 7 show actual product screenshots rather than mockups, and the differentiation claim is specific and checkable: real-time supplier concentration and lead-time risk scoring embedded directly into the procurement workflow inside SAP and NetSuite, rather than a standalone dashboard the buyer has to remember to check. That's a meaningfully different claim to most comparable products in the category, several of which are dashboard-first. The only note against a higher score is that the deck doesn't show a product roadmap, so it's unclear how defensible this integration-first position stays as competitors catch up.
"We're raising £750,000 at a £4m pre-money valuation to fund our next 18 months of growth." — Slide 9, The Ask
The ask slide states an amount and a valuation, but no slide anywhere in the deck, including the appendix, shows a cap table or ownership breakdown of any kind. There's no way for a reader to see current founder ownership, how the two existing SAFE holders convert, or what percentage a new investor's £750,000 actually buys at the stated valuation.
A cap table is one of the first things a seed investor checks, often before they've finished reading the rest of the deck. Its absence doesn't just withhold information, it raises a direct question about whether the founders have a firm handle on their own dilution math, which colours how every other number in the deck gets read.
Add a single post-round cap table slide directly after the ask.
Show founder ownership before and after this round, the two existing SAFE holders' converted stakes, and the new investor's resulting percentage, using the same £4m pre-money and £750k figures already stated on slide 9. This is a same-day fix: the underlying numbers already exist in the founders' own records.
Slide 8 financial table headers: "Month 1 … Month 12: Revenue, Headcount." No further columns beyond Month 12.
The financial model shown projects revenue and headcount forward twelve months, with no monthly burn, no cash balance, and no explicit runway figure at any point. Slide 9 pitches the £750,000 raise as funding "the next 18 months of growth", a full six months beyond where the model shown actually stops.
This is the kind of inconsistency a diligence-minded investor catches on a first careful read, not after several meetings. The ask and the model failing to reconcile undermines confidence in every other number in the deck, even ones that are individually solid, because it suggests the founders haven't stress-tested their own materials.
Extend the model to Month 18–24 and add burn and closing cash balance columns.
Make the runway figure explicit on the slide itself, not something the reader has to calculate, so it visibly matches the 18-month horizon already claimed on the ask slide.
"We've grown MRR from £4k to £15k in six months, 18% month-on-month, with 14 paying customers." — Slide 4, Traction
The growth number is real, specific, and creditable, but it's presented in isolation. There's no indication anywhere on the slide of what "good" looks like at this stage for a comparable company, so the reader has no anchor for whether 18% month-on-month is exceptional, average, or below par.
Investors pattern-match against comparable-stage benchmarks within the first minute of reading a deck. A bare number invites the reader to supply their own frame, and that frame defaults to sceptical more often than generous. An 18% MoM figure that's genuinely ahead of the pack currently reads as merely "fine" because nothing tells the reader otherwise.
Add one supporting line benchmarking the growth rate against a citable public source.
For example: "OpenView's 2025 SaaS benchmark report puts median seed-stage month-on-month growth at 10–15%; Northbridge is tracking ahead of that band." A single sourced sentence turns an assertion into a fact the reader can sanity-check themselves.
"Global procurement software TAM is projected at £4.2bn by 2027 (Gartner)." — Slide 6, Market
The £4.2bn figure is cited with a source, which is better than an unsourced number, but it's a single global top-down statistic with no SAM or SOM breakdown underneath it, and no connection back to Northbridge's actual addressable base of UK mid-market manufacturers.
Top-down-only TAM slides are one of the most reflexively discounted slides in early-stage decks, investors have seen the pattern too many times to take a global figure at face value. It invites the exact question a founder least wants live in the room: "what's actually addressable by you, in the next 24 months?"
Add a bottom-up SAM/SOM calculation underneath the existing TAM figure.
For example: roughly 3,800 UK manufacturers with 100–500 staff, an achievable £9k average contract value based on the 14 customers already signed, and a realistic five-year penetration rate, landing on a defensible SOM the reader can check the arithmetic on themselves.
"We are raising £750,000 to accelerate growth." — Slide 9, The Ask
"To accelerate growth" is the entire use-of-funds explanation on the slide. There's no breakdown by function, no milestone attached to the spend, and no stated runway, just the headline number and a general-purpose phrase.
Investors fund a plan, not a number. An ask this undifferentiated makes it genuinely difficult for a reader to judge whether £750k is the right amount for what's being attempted, and reads as under-planned even when the underlying thinking is sound.
Break the £750,000 into 3–4 milestone-linked tranches.
For example: "£320k: 2 account executives + 1 customer success hire, to Month 12", "£180k: SOC 2 certification + two further ERP integrations", "£150k: 18-month runway buffer", each with a stated expected outcome rather than a single undifferentiated figure.
Team slide bio: "Marcus previously worked in logistics software before co-founding Northbridge." Appendix footnote, Slide 17: "Marcus's previous company, Fielo, was acquired by Xelanta Logistics in 2021."
The acquisition is real, specific, and relevant, and it's mentioned exactly once, in an 8-point footnote, three slides after the appendix begins. The team slide itself, where a reader would actually expect to find it, describes the same fact only as "previously worked in logistics software".
A prior successful exit is one of the highest-weighted signals investors use to de-risk a bet on a first-time-at-this-scale founding team. Most readers never reach an appendix footnote at all, so this genuinely strong credential is currently doing no persuasive work whatsoever.
Rewrite Marcus's team-slide bio line to lead with the exit.
"Marcus Whelan, CTO — previously founded Fielo (acquired by Xelanta Logistics, 2021)." Front and centre on the team slide, not held back for the appendix.
This section reviews the deck's actual visual presentation, font consistency, chart choices, whitespace, and layout, not just the text extracted from it, which requires reading the deck as images rather than text.
This section only runs when your deck's page images were captured at upload time, so it's genuinely not always present, even in a real paid report. We're showing that honestly here rather than inventing a version of it for this sample.
Northbridge's current moat is closer to a data network effect than to defensible IP: each additional customer's procurement transactions sharpen supplier risk scoring for every other customer sourcing from overlapping suppliers. That effect compounds slowly, it likely needs several dozen customers rather than a handful before it's a meaningful barrier, and isn't yet strong enough to hold off a well-capitalised, faster-distribution entrant, Vantage Metrics moving down-market from enterprise being the most plausible version of that threat over this horizon.
At £180k ARR and 14 customers eighteen months post-incorporation, Northbridge sits within the typical range for a UK B2B SaaS company raising a seed round in this category, comparable both to Ledgerly's position at its own £1.8m seed and to Datapoint Systems' recent bridge. The differentiator versus both isn't the traction number itself but the ERP-embedded delivery mechanic, which neither close competitor currently claims.
Timing favours the category over the next 3–5 years: post-pandemic supply chain visibility spend hasn't reversed, and incoming EU/UK corporate sustainability reporting requirements are pushing mid-market manufacturers to formalise supplier risk data they previously tracked informally or not at all, both trends that expand rather than shrink Northbridge's addressable base.
The single highest-leverage fix available: addresses the most commonly cited investor red flag found in this deck, and the underlying numbers already exist.
Closes the gap between the 12-month model shown and the 18-month horizon the ask itself claims.
Turns a reflexively discounted top-down number into a defensible, checkable one.
A five-minute rewrite that surfaces a genuinely strong credential currently buried in an appendix footnote.
Turns "£750k to accelerate growth" into a plan an investor can evaluate line by line.
Northbridge Analytics has a genuinely credible underlying business: real revenue, a specific and defensible product angle, and a founding team with at least one relevant prior exit. None of that currently comes through cleanly in the deck. The two structural gaps doing the most damage are the missing cap table and the financial model's mismatch with the ask's own stated horizon, both are the kind of thing a diligence-minded investor catches within the first careful read, before the strength of the underlying business gets a fair hearing. Fixed, this deck moves from "promising but under-prepared" to genuinely investable at seed; none of the five fixes on the roadmap above requires new data the company doesn't already have.
Narrative and storytelling fixes, distinct from the structural gaps covered elsewhere in this report.
Currently leads with the company name and logo alone. Lead instead with a one-line problem statement, e.g. the cost of an unflagged single-source supplier failure, before introducing the company.
The £4k-to-£15k MRR growth is currently a sentence of text. A simple line chart makes the same number visually undeniable in the two seconds an investor actually spends on this slide.
Ends on a generic "Thank you" slide. Close instead on the ask and the 18-month vision it funds, the last thing on screen is what a reader remembers walking out of the room.
Not yet live in the product today. This page is reserved for it, so the report's page count and structure won't need to change once it is.
The Deck Gap is a diagnostic tool. It does not provide financial, investment, or legal advice, and does not introduce, match, or route founders to investors.
A real report is produced by our tool's automated analysis of the deck content you upload. It reflects patterns commonly associated with investor hesitation, it is not a guarantee of funding outcome and should not be treated as a substitute for advice from a qualified advisor. This particular page, and every page above it, is an illustrative worked example on a fictional company, not output from a real analysis.
See the terms of use and privacy policy for full detail on data handling and retention.
Free Tier first, no card required. Full Report available for £49 if you want the complete picture, or the Investor Readiness Session (£295) if you want a call first.
Check your deck