Every claim in your deck — cited, signed, defended
Investors red-team your numbers before you ever reach term sheets. The Sentinel Method runs the same scrutiny first — every claim cited, weak spots rewritten, a named human's signature on the result — so the version you send is investor-ready.
One method, three moments. Idea Validation checks your idea before you build — this verifies your deck before you pitch.
In one line
Pitch deck verification is an independent check of every quantified claim, benchmark, and source in your pitch deck before investors see it. ThriveFinity's Sentinel Method cross-references each claim against licensed primary data, rewrites the weak ones with citations, and a named human signs the verdict — typically in 48 hours.
From a real audit · Claims anonymised
This is what we actually find inside decks
Every row below is drawn from a real Pre-Launch Verification engagement. Founder names, company names, and financials are redacted. The claims, verdicts, and rewrites are unedited.
| Claim (from deck) | Verdict | What we found | Rewrite supplied |
|---|---|---|---|
| "The global market for [category] is $4.2B and growing at 18% CAGR." | Disputed | Source cited was a 2019 press release from a market research firm that no longer exists. Current Statista/IBISWorld data shows the addressable segment at $1.8B with 11% CAGR. | "The [category] market reached $1.8B in 2024 (IBISWorld, Feb 2025) and is forecast to grow at 11% CAGR through 2028 — placing our total addressable market at $[X]." |
| "Our NPS of 72 puts us in the top quartile of B2B SaaS." | Rewritten | Median B2B SaaS NPS is 36 (Satmetrix 2024, n=1,200+). A score of 72 is genuinely strong — but "top quartile" benchmark requires n≥50 surveys; founder had n=12. Directionally true but unsubstantiated at that precision. | "Early cohort NPS of 72 across [n] users — above the 2024 B2B SaaS median of 36 (Satmetrix). We will resurvey at n=50 before Series A." |
| "Only 3 direct competitors exist globally. None serve our niche." | Rewritten | 11 competitors identified via LinkedIn, Crunchbase, and App Store search — 4 with product-market overlap >60% and 2 backed by Tier-1 VCs. Claim would have prompted an immediate follow-up from any prepared investor. | "We map 11 players across the category. Our differentiation is [X]: [specific moat]. See competitive landscape on slide [N]." (Separate competitive appendix supplied.) |
| "We'll reach profitability in Month 18 at $420K MRR." | Disputed | Model implies 22% month-over-month growth from current $8K MRR with zero churn. Median SaaS MoM growth at seed stage is 8–12% (Carta 2024). Compounding gap puts profitability at Month 28–34 under realistic assumptions. | "Base case: profitability at Month 28 ($310K MRR) assuming 10% MoM growth. Bull case: Month 18 ($420K MRR) at 22% MoM — requires [specific named trigger]." (Three-scenario model supplied.) |
| "Regulatory approval is straightforward — 60–90 days." | Verified | Confirmed against MHRA Fast Track guidance (updated Q1 2025). 60–90 day timeline applies to Class I devices under founder's specific product classification. Claim stands with source attached. | "MHRA Class I registration: 60–90 days (MHRA Fast Track Guidance, Jan 2025)." ✓ Claim retained — source citation added inline. |
"The global market for [category] is $4.2B and growing at 18% CAGR."
"Our NPS of 72 puts us in the top quartile of B2B SaaS."
"Only 3 direct competitors exist globally. None serve our niche."
"We'll reach profitability in Month 18 at $420K MRR."
"Regulatory approval is straightforward — 60–90 days."
All data anonymised · Names, sectors, and financials changed · Methodology: Sentinel Method
What it is
An adversarial audit before your deck leaves your hands
Pre-Launch Verification is not a proofreading pass. It is a structured interrogation of every claim you plan to make in front of capital — conducted by a named human analyst, grounded in cited evidence, and returned as a signed verdict you can stand behind.
If a claim cannot be verified, it is flagged. If it can be strengthened, the replacement is provided with a source. If the logic chain between numbers breaks down, you see exactly where and how to fix it before an investor does. Need to verify a single deck claim before committing? Start with a free Teardown. Curious how investors verify startup claims before writing a cheque? See their exact process → Want the full breakdown of the process behind every verdict? Read how QUAD verification actually works →
Get My Free Teardown →The Sentinel Method · powered by QUAD
Five phases. Evidence-cited only.
Primary source ingestion
Every assertion is sourced against live primary data before analysis begins. Unverifiable claims are flagged at entry — not buried in the report.
- Sources: PatentsView, DataForSEO, Companies House, public filings + verified APIs
- TAM/SAM/SOM methodology stress-tested
- Competitor claims cross-referenced
Internal logic audit
Verified claims are checked for consistency across slides. Revenue vs. growth assumptions. Problem size vs. pricing. Contradictions mapped precisely.
- Cross-slide consistency check
- Financial model assumption review
- Logic chain gaps documented
Adversarial red-team
Each claim is placed under the strongest investor objection. Where evidence is insufficient, a replacement claim is drafted with stronger grounding.
- Investor objection simulation per claim
- Evidence-to-objection pairing
- Replacement claims drafted where needed
Structured verdict document
Findings assembled by slide, claim, and status. Format mirrors what a VC diligence team would produce internally.
- Slide-by-slide verdict structure
- Status: verified / flagged / replaced
- Inline source citation per finding
Named human sign-off
One named analyst signs the report. A person — named, contactable, and responsible for every finding on your verified asset.
- Named analyst signature on every report
- Verifier name on your signed verdict
- 3 ranked rebuttal rounds
What we check
Every layer of your pitch under scrutiny
Market size claims
TAM, SAM, and SOM figures traced to primary sources. Methodology challenged. Bottom-up vs top-down logic tested.
Revenue projections
Growth assumptions stress-tested. Unit economics checked for internal consistency. Conversion rate claims benchmarked.
Traction & metrics
User counts, MRR, engagement rates, and retention figures reviewed for definition consistency and credible framing.
Competitive positioning
Competitor comparison matrices checked for accuracy. "No direct competitor" claims challenged. Moat assertions tested against public evidence.
Team & credential claims
Background statements, prior exit claims, and advisor credentials verified against public records. Misattributions flagged.
Social proof & press
Awards, press mentions, partnership announcements, and testimonial quotes traced to primary sources. Inflated claims reframed.
Who uses Pre-Launch Verification
Built for the moment before someone else checks
Seed & Series A founders raising
You have a deck out or about to go out, and every market, traction, and competitive claim in it needs to survive a diligence-minded investor.
Founders re-pitching after a knock-back
An investor already challenged a number and the round stalled. You need to know which other claims won't survive the next meeting before you take it.
Anyone publishing a public claim
Launch pages, press releases, and investor updates carry the same risk as a deck. If a number in it is checkable, it should be checked first.
You haven't decided whether the underlying idea is worth building yet — start with Idea Validation instead. Or your claims are still in draft and will change before anyone sees them — verify the final version, not a moving target.
Why not just…
How Pre-Launch Verification compares
AI tools, advisors, and consultants all have their place. Only one delivers a signed, cited verdict from a named human before you launch.
| Approach | ThriveFinity PLV | Advisor / Mentor | Deck Consultant | AI Tool |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source cited | ✓ | Rarely | No | Partial |
| Named human verifier | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | No |
| Investor red-team | ✓ | Sometimes | Sometimes | No |
| Rebuttal rounds | Up to 3 | Informal | Varies | No |
| Signed report | ✓ | No | No | No |
| Typical cost | £0 – £499 | Equity / intro | £2k – £15k | £0 – £20/mo |
Not sure which tier is right? Start Free Teardown
The cost of not verifying
One challenged claim costs more than the audit
The investor challenge
An investor flags a market size claim mid-pitch. You can't defend it in the room. The meeting ends. You spend 3 weeks rebuilding credibility, re-pitching, re-scheduling. The round slips by 6 weeks.
Estimated cost: £30,000–£80,000 in runway consumed during delay
The post-term-sheet pull
Due diligence uncovers a contradiction in your traction numbers. The lead investor requests a corrected information memorandum. Legal fees and re-negotiation delays cost you co-investor confidence. The round shrinks.
Estimated cost: £50,000–£200,000 in dilution or lost participation
The verified pitch
Every claim arrives cited. Every objection is pre-answered. You walk in with a signed report. The investor's diligence becomes confirmation rather than interrogation. The round closes on schedule.
Cost: £0 (Free Teardown) · £499 (Audit)Free (Teardown) · ₹19,999 (Audit)
India pricing, incl. 18% GST
Questions about verification
What counts as a 'claim' in my deck?
Will you NDA before reviewing?
Can I use the verification report with investors?
What's the turnaround if I need it faster?
How is this different from hiring a consultant?
Ready to go in confident
What does your deck look like under investor scrutiny?
Start with a Free Teardown — one claim verified, sourced, and challenged before it reaches an investor. No card required.
Get My Free Teardown →Three tiers, one studio
Start free. Go verified when the stakes rise.
Free Teardown
AI · ~1 hour · no card
One claim scored, sourced, and challenged before it reaches an investor. Your first filter — free, always.
- One claim verified or challenged
- One rebuttal with source
- AI-generated — no card, ever
Audit
Human-verified · 48h · 30-day refund
Every claim in your deck sourced, scored, and signed by a named verifier. Weak claims rewritten. Investor-shareable output.
- Full Sentinel Method — unlimited claims
- 3 ranked rebuttals per claim
- Named verifier — direct access, not a portal
- Weak claims rewritten with citable sources
- 5 adversarial + 15 investor personas from SIP™
- Improvement roadmap + investor-shareable format
- NDA on request
Personas are adversarial stress tests grounded in a modeled synthetic population — see methodology
Sentinel Auto ⚡
Machine-only · 2h · unsigned
Full asset covered instantly by AI. No human signature. Upgrade credit applies to Audit if you need it signed.
- One full asset covered (deck, LP, one-pager)
- Every claim sourced, dated, and scored
- AI-generated · unsigned (upgrade credit to Audit)
Sentinel Watch — £49/mo
Your deck changes.
Your claims should too.
A one-time Audit clears your deck for the pitch you're preparing right now. But decks evolve — you update metrics, sharpen the story, add new market claims. Sentinel Watch re-runs adversarial checks on your live materials every month and flags anything that has drifted out of defensibility before investors see it.
- Monthly re-verification of all live claims
- Email alert when any claim needs updating
- Human review on flagged items — same named verifier
- Cancel any time — no lock-in
Start your monthly watch
£49 /month
Founders who stopped guessing
We'd already closed a small round on this deck, so I thought it was fine. The PLV report came back and it wasn't harsh or vague — it was just specific. Three claims I thought were solid had either no primary source or were citing data from 2018. One of them was the headline number on the deck cover. We fixed everything, went back, and closed £100,000 from an investor who'd previously passed. I still think about how close we came to walking into that meeting with a deck we couldn't defend.
Read full case study — Daily99We brought ThriveFinity in before we'd published a single piece of content. I wanted search to be a proper acquisition channel from day one — not something we figured out two years in. They designed the whole strategy, built the cluster structure, even created a content track around ERC-8004 that nobody else was covering. Sixteen months later we're ranking top 5 for self-hosted crypto gateway terms and getting traffic from 130 countries. Starting right matters more than I expected.
Read full case study — PayRamHonestly, I thought our GTM was fine. We were getting enquiries, we had a clear service, the market felt right. The Strategic Intelligence report showed us we were speaking to the right people but framing it completely wrong — we were positioning on quality and price when our target clients were actually buying on outcomes and risk reduction. We rebuilt the whole pitch around what the report found. The conversion went up. But more than the number, I finally felt like I understood why some deals were closing and others weren't.
Read full case study — TVP StudiosStart free. Move up when the stakes do
No credit card to start. No commitment. Send us one claim and see what we find — most founders are surprised by what comes back.
The other side of the ledger: one wrong claim challenged in the room can cost £40k–£500k+ in a stalled or lost raise. Every tier below is a rounding error against that.
One claim, one rebuttal, one edit. Delivered in 1 hour. No payment required.
- 1 public claim verified by AI
- 1 rebuttal ranked by severity
- 1-hour delivery via email
- No account needed — ever
One-time payment · No subscription · No auto-renewal
One full asset — deck, LP, or one-pager — verified with sources. AI-generated, unsigned. 2 hours.
- One full asset covered (deck, LP, or one-pager)
- Every claim sourced, dated, and scored
- Falsification test + confidence rating per claim
- 2-hour delivery, AI-generated · unsigned
One-time payment · No subscription · No auto-renewal
Your full asset, three rebuttals, one rewrite. Named human verifier. 48 hours.
- Full asset reviewed end-to-end
- 3 rebuttals, ranked by severity
- Synthetic Intelligence Population™ — modeled population of 2,500 target customers
- 5 representative adversarial personas + 15 investor personas, drawn from that population
- 60 evidence-based scenarios simulated, with structured voting & consensus analysis
- Improvement roadmap — what to fix, what already works
- 48-hour delivery
- Named human verifier signs
- 30-day refund guarantee
One-time payment · No subscription · No auto-renewal
Ready to verify your deck?
Start free — no card, no commitment. Upgrade at any point.