See a Sample Audit Report | ThriveFinity

ThriveFinity

Sample / Illustrative · Fictional Company Data

This is what you
are buying

A real Pre-Launch Verification Audit format, with a fictional company and founder. Claims, evidence, verdict, analyst signature: all built the same way a real one is. Read it before you decide.

Conditional Go

64/100 composite

Asset type Seed pitch deck

Tier Audit

Claims reviewed 9 market claims

Delivered in 41 hours

Audit ID SA-0014

Results at a glance

4

Verified

Primary source found and cited

3

Failed

Contradicted or uncitable — must fix

2

? Unverifiable

No public primary source exists

Verified

A primary source was found, accessed, and cited. The claim holds.

E — Failed

Contradicted by sources — or no source can be found. Must be corrected or removed.

E — Unverifiable

No public primary source exists. Add methodology, cite internal data, or remove the claim.

The Rebuttal column shows exactly what an adversarial investor or regulator would say. Grades A–E rate source quality and reliability.

Verbatim from submitted deck

Every claim, examined

Each card shows the verbatim claim, a one-line finding, then the full evidence and adversarial rebuttal on expand. The grade (A–E) rates source quality.

C-01

A Verified

"The UK food delivery market reached £12.8bn in 2023, growing at 14% CAGR."

Market size confirmed at £12.6bn — within rounding. Post-pandemic CAGR reverts to ~7%. An informed investor will ask why the pre-COVID baseline was used.

C-02 High

E Failed

"60% of independent restaurants say delivery is their primary growth channel."

UKHospitality 2023 (n=312) reports 38%, not 60%. No source produces the 60% figure. This single claim overstates TAM-sizing input by 58%.

Evidence / Source Grade E

UKHospitality 2023 survey (n=312) reports 38% of independent restaurants cite online delivery as a primary growth lever — not 60%. No source produces the 60% figure.

Adversarial Rebuttal

This is a TAM-sizing input. Overstating restaurant demand by 58% materially inflates the addressable market. Replace with cited UKHospitality 38% or conduct primary research.

C-03

E Unverifiable

"Our B2B clients see a 23% reduction in operational costs within 90 days."

Internal proprietary claim. No sample size, methodology, or independent verification exists. An investor can dismiss this as marketing copy in under 60 seconds.

Evidence / Source Grade E

No third-party source exists. This is a proprietary internal claim. Without a methodology note, sample size, or independent verification, it cannot be graded.

Adversarial Rebuttal

An investor will ask: how many clients? How is 'operational costs' defined? Was there a control group? Without answers, this reads as marketing copy. Add a methodology footnote or remove until you have ≥5 verified case studies.

C-04

A Verified

"Food waste costs the UK hospitality sector £3.2bn annually."

WRAP 2022 directly confirms £3.2bn. Caveat: this covers all hospitality. Your relevant sub-market (independent restaurants) is ~£576m — use that figure instead.

Evidence / Source Grade A

WRAP UK Hospitality Food Waste Report 2022 (£3.2bn cited, methodology: physical waste audits n=186 sites + sector extrapolation). Direct match.

Adversarial Rebuttal

The WRAP figure includes waste across all hospitality. Your product targets independent restaurants only (~18% of sector). The relevant sub-market figure is ~£576m — use that instead to avoid scope-creep criticism.

C-05 Critical

E Failed

"We have no direct competitors in the UK market."

Three direct competitors identified. One raised £4.2m Seed in 2023. A sophisticated investor finds these in 10 minutes. This claim is disqualifying.

Evidence / Source Grade E

Three direct competitors identified: [Redacted — Company A], [Redacted — Company B], [Redacted — Company C], all operating in the same sector with overlapping feature sets. One raised £4.2m Seed in 2023.

Adversarial Rebuttal

A sophisticated investor will find these in 10 minutes. Claiming no competition signals either naivety or deception — both are disqualifying. Replace with an honest competitive positioning map.

C-06

B Verified

"The average UK restaurant spends 28–35% of revenue on food and labour combined."

CGA data confirmed — but the deck conflates two separate line items. Food cost is 28–32%; labour is another 28–35%. Combined is 56–67%, not 28–35%.

Evidence / Source Grade B

CGA Strategy UK Restaurant Cost Index Q3 2023. Food cost: 28–32% of revenue. Labour: further 28–35%. The deck conflates the two — these are separate line items totalling 56–67%, not 28–35%.

Adversarial Rebuttal

The deck appears to quote only food cost but state it as 'food and labour combined.' This creates a 2× understatement of operational cost burden. Clarify or separate.

C-07

E Unverifiable

"Our NPS score is 72, compared to an industry average of 41."

NPS of 72 is internal and unverifiable. The 41 'industry average' comes from generic B2B SaaS (CustomerGauge) — not hospitality software. Apples to oranges.

C-08

A Verified

"UK restaurant closures hit a 10-year high of 12,000 in 2023."

AlixPartners 2024 + Companies House confirm ~11,800 closures — within rounding. Strong macro tailwind. Pair it with reopening rate to show net trajectory.

C-09 High

E Failed

"Our churn rate is below 2% annually, matching best-in-class SaaS benchmarks."

Benchmark mis-cited. Best-in-class SMB SaaS churn is 3–5% (OpenView 2023) — sub-2% is enterprise-grade. Hospitality also carries structural closure-churn.

Evidence / Source Grade E

Benchmark mis-cited. OpenView Partners SaaS Benchmarks 2023: median annual churn for SMB-focused SaaS is 8–12%; 'best-in-class' is 3–5%. Sub-2% is enterprise-grade. Hospitality software carries structural closure-churn (restaurants close).

Adversarial Rebuttal

If the 2% claim is accurate, it is remarkable and should be defended with data, not compared to a wrong benchmark. If it includes customers who closed their restaurants (involuntary churn), it is misleading. Clarify or remove.

Analyst verdict

Conditional Go

64 /100

The core product hypothesis is sound and macro tailwinds (closures, food waste costs) are well-evidenced. However, three claims — including a competitor-landscape denial and a TAM-sizing input — are directly falsifiable by an informed investor. These must be corrected before any investor conversation.

Required before next investor meeting

Replace C-02 with the cited 38% UKHospitality figure.
Remove or defend C-05 with an honest competitive positioning map.
Add methodology notes to C-03 and C-07 — or remove until supported by primary data.
Clarify the scope conflation in C-06 (food cost ≠ food + labour combined).

Pranav Unni

Lead Verifier · Pre-Launch Verification · Audit #SA-0014

Issued: [Date redacted] · Report version: 1.0 · This report is issued under ThriveFinity's Sentinel Method, powered by QUAD. The analyst confirms that all sources cited above were accessed, verified, and are reproducible. Findings represent the analyst's independent professional judgement.

30-day full refund · If any cited source cannot be reproduced, full refund within 24h

What you just read is what you get

Which of your claims hold up?

Start with a Free Teardown — one claim, one rebuttal, one edit. No card required. Need every claim verified? Choose the full Audit.

Get a Free Teardown → Get Full Audit — £499

30-day refund · One-time · Named analyst signs every report

This is what youare buying

Every claim, examined

Which of your claims hold up?

This is what you
are buying