How it works
Blank page to a memo your IC will actually read — three moves.
Screen the deal
Run the deal through the scorecard below. Five dimensions, weights that move with the stage, and a red-flag checklist where a cap-table, IP, or founder problem caps the score no matter how good the rest looks. You walk away with a number you can defend, not a gut call.
Write the memo
Fill in the eight sections. Each one carries the questions an IC will actually ask and the single mistake that sinks it. Three worked memos — one of them a reasoned PASS — show you what a good one reads like before you write your own.
Reconcile the math
Drop your numbers into the cap-table sheet: dilution round by round, and an exit waterfall that survives a liquidation-preference stack. It gives you your MOIC (multiple on invested capital — how many times your money comes back, so 8× means $8 out for every $1 in) and IRR (the annualised return rate). This is the number copied templates get wrong. Here it ties out, and you can show your work to an LP.
How the kit compares
| IC Memo Kit | Free / DIY template | Copying another fund's memo | Fractional CFO / fund consultant | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | $99–$349 one-time | $0 | $0 (but you don't have one) | $300–$600/hr · $5k–$25k engagement |
| Turnaround | Request now · delivered within 1 business day | Instant | Depends on who'll share theirs | Days to weeks |
| Cap-table / preference-stack math | Reconciled model included | Usually missing | Their deal, not yours | Yes — at hourly cost |
| Stage-weighted screening | Deterministic engine | Static checklist | Not portable | Varies by consultant |
| Worked PASS example | Yes — a reasoned decline | No | Rarely shared | Not a deliverable |
| Yours forever | Yes · free updates | Yes | N/A | Re-engage each time |
Consultant and fractional-CFO price ranges are typical published market rates for early-stage advisory work, shown for comparison — not a quote.
What you get
Eight worked sections. One model that ties out.
These are real pages from the 64-page worked memo — Halden Thermal, a fictional deep-tech deal. Every number on them comes out of the engine, not a copywriter. Scroll across →
Writing a $25k–$100k angel or SPV check, not a fund check? The sample is deliberately fund-scale ($1M check, $25M fund) so it can show every table at once. You use the same screening scorecard and the same cap-table waterfall — you just skip the three fund-construction rows (§6 p39–40) that only matter when you're building a portfolio. See exactly which rows to skip ↓
Target Overview & Thesis
Solid-state thermal-storage bricks: charge on cheap off-peak power, discharge 400–600 °C process heat by day. Unit + heat-as-a-service.
What must be true: installed cost/kWh undercuts gas · a lighthouse customer renews · pilot skid → financeable unit.
Market Sizing & Timing
Founder's claim: "$400B TAM" — the whole global heat spend. True but useless.
A $2B honest SOM scores better — it shows they know who pays.
Product / Solution
Today: one 2 MWh pilot skid, 7 months at a lighthouse site + bench data. Roadmap: containerized unit + charge-optimization software (not yet built).
Better on: ~22% lower cost/delivered-kWh — credible but tariff-specific.
Moat: storage-medium formulation (patent pending) + a compounding operating dataset.
Team Evaluation
Unfair insight: CTO — nine years high-temp materials at a national lab; holds two of three pending patents. CEO sold industrial heat-recovery — knows the procurement cycle cold.
Evidence: shipped and ran the pilot themselves; lighthouse customer confirmed uptime on a reference call.
Gap: no repeatable-manufacturing hire yet — the next critical role.
Valuation & Comparables
Comparable seeds: peers at $12M / $18M / $22M pre with a working pilot. Halden's $16M pre sits mid-pack.
Forward cross-check: ~$6M ARR in ~4 yrs × ~4× forward ⇒ ~$24M next-round post — consistent with a $20M post now only if on-plan.
Cap-Table & Exit Waterfall
Entry 5.0% → after A (−20%) → after B (−18%) = 3.28% diluted.
| Exit | To common | MOIC |
|---|---|---|
| $50M | $10M | 0.33× |
| $250M | $250M* | 8.2× |
| $800M | $800M* | 26.2× |
At $50M the $40M preference eats most of the exit before you see a cent — the number cheap templates omit. *Above ~$40M the preferred converts to common (it's worth more) and the stack drops away, so "to common" is the full exit. That switch is exactly what a reconciled model gets right and a copied one fumbles.
Risks & Red Flags
1. Cost claim doesn't generalize — the 22% saving is tariff-specific. Primary condition on the yes.
2. Manufacturing risk — no repeatable line yet.
3. IP held personally — fatal-class flag until assignment executes; close is conditioned on it.
Scorecard (seed): 73/100, "Promising."
Recommendation & Terms
INVEST — with conditions.
Kill-switches: cost claim fails to replicate · IP stalls · lighthouse churns.
Stage-weighted rubric
Five dimensions, weights that shift by stage. Fatal red flags cap the score at Pass.
Run it live below — free, no email.
But you're buying the blank doc — here's what a section looks like empty
The Halden memo above proves the method on a filled-in deal. What you actually download is the editable template — a Google Doc + Word file with the prompts and the one mistake to avoid built into each section, and blank space for your own writing. This is Section 1 of that empty template, verbatim, before anyone types a word:
Job: state what the company does and the one-sentence reason you'd write the check — before any detail.
• In one sentence a stranger understands: what does the company sell, to whom, for what?
• Round mechanics: stage, amount, instrument (SAFE / priced), pre/post, your proposed check.
• The thesis: "We invest because ______, and this returns the fund (or my check) if ______."
• What has to be true for this to be a fund-returner? Name it now — the rest of the memo tests it.
And here's a second one — the risks section — blank, so you can see the shape isn't identical section to section:
Job: name the three to five things that would make this a loss — before someone on the IC names them for you.
• The top risks, most-fatal first: what could kill the return, and how likely is each?
• For each: what would you need to see to retire it, or what condition on the deal contains it?
• Any fatal-class flags (cap-table, IP, founder)? If so, the score is capped until it clears — say so here.
All eight sections ship this way — prompt questions plus the killer, then blank space you fill. See every section's prompts and killers spelled out in the guide, free.
Your inputs → your report
You type in your deal. The tables rebuild themselves around your numbers.
To be clear about the split: the spreadsheet does the recalculating — you type your figures and every table below regenerates itself. The memo prose you still write, guided by the template's prompts (that's the part judgment can't automate). Here's the exact mapping from the sample memo: the fictional Halden inputs on the left, the page each one drives on the right. Put your own deal in and the same engine regenerates every table with your figures. Click a page badge to jump straight to it in the sample.
Every figure above comes from the same deterministic engine you can run free below — not an LLM guess. Same inputs, same numbers, every time, and each one checks out by hand. Halden Thermal is fictional; the numbers are there to show the method.
The Halden example is fund-scale ($1M check, $25M fund) because it shows every table at once — but nothing here needs LPs, a fund floor, or 22 positions. As a solo angel or syndicate lead you use the same screening scorecard and the same cap-table waterfall; you just skip the fund-construction rows (§6 p39–40) that only matter when you're building a portfolio. Drop your real check size — even $25k or $50k — into the calculator at the top of the page and the exact same math runs: your entry %, your dilution, your preference stack, your number to defend. The dollar gap between a copied memo and a reconciled one is smaller at $50k than at $1M, but it's the difference between an 8× and a loss on the same deal — which is exactly the call you're making.
Try it free — no email required to see your score
The deal-screening scorecard, live.
Rate a real deal on five dimensions. The weighting shifts with the stage — a pre-seed can't be scored on traction it doesn't have yet. This is the same engine that ships in the kit, and your score updates as you go.
Red-flag checklist
Want a keepable copy plus a 1-page IC-memo cheat-sheet? Send yourself this scorecard — a real person emails it back (usually same business day).
Educational analysis — not investment, legal, or tax advice. You supply every rating; the tool only makes your judgment explicit and comparable across deals.
Pricing
One flat fee. Yours forever. No success fees, ever.
$0
Screen a deal right now.
- Stage-weighted scorecard, live on this page
- Red-flag checklist with fatal-item logic
- Instant estimate — no signup to see your score
- Email yourself a keepable copy
$149 $99 intro
The complete downloadable kit.
- 8-section IC memo template — an editable Google Doc + Word file you fill in
- Three fully-worked sample memos (incl. a PASS)
- Stage-weighted scorecard + red-flag checklist
- Cap-table / exit-return & portfolio model — a live Google Sheet / Excel workbook with the dilution, preference and MOIC formulas pre-built, so it recalculates the moment you type in your own deal
- Delivered within 1 business day · free lifetime updates
$349
Kit plus a 45-min walkthrough.
- Everything in the kit
- 45-min live template-application session
- We structure the memo & scorecard with you
- Template-application coaching — not investment advice
Ordering is concierge — you leave your email and get a card-checkout link back within 1 business day, then the download on payment. Payment runs through a merchant-of-record (Gumroad / Lemon Squeezy) that collects any VAT/sales tax and issues your receipt.
If you back funds and want the managers you allocate to writing sharper, more reconcilable memos, the kit is a clean thing to put in their hands. Multi-seat licences are volume-tiered off the $99 single price: $79/seat at 5+ seats and $59/seat at 20+, one master file with a per-seat download, paid by invoice or bank wire. Email inha.journey@gmail.com with a seat count and you'll get a formal quote and the licence terms within 1 business day.
What's a right memo worth on your kind of deal?
Illustrative, not a claim about your deal or a promise of returns. These are the same fictional Halden preference-stack gap, rescaled to each check size — the dollars a reconciled memo catches per position that a copied one misses, using the identical waterfall as the calculator above. Your own inputs drive the only number that matters to you; run the calculator to get it.
| You are… | Typical check | Stage | Illustrative gap a reconciled memo catches / position* (not a claim about your deal or a return) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Angel / syndicate lead | $25k–$100k | Pre-seed | ~$200k–$800k of misjudged proceeds |
| Solo GP, first fund | $150k–$500k | Seed | ~$1.0M–$3.5M of misjudged proceeds |
| Emerging fund lead | $500k–$1.5M | Seed / A | ~$3.5M–$11M of misjudged proceeds |
| Accelerator / IC staff | $50k–$250k | Pre-seed / Seed | ~$350k–$2.0M × many deals/yr |
*The gap between a memo that ignores dilution + the liquidation-preference stack and one that reconciles them, at a base-case exit. Your inputs drive the real number — run the calculator at the top of the page.
Why trust the methodology
Real operator experience. Public method. No borrowed numbers.
Judge this kit on the free sample memo and the live tools, not on a résumé. For context on where the method comes from: this is operator experience — corporate-development and IR work on live capital raises and diligence — not a fund track record, and nothing here is a claim about investment returns.
Wrote real IC memos — and sat on the other side
Full investment memos across sectors, declines included, plus fund-formation work — and, working the raise side, I sat across the table from the check-writers reading them. So the kit is built from both angles: what a memo has to contain, and what makes a reader trust it or bin it.
Ran fund-formation work
Fund-formation work inside a government innovation fund — charters, LP terms, portfolio-triage frameworks. I've done the construction math on live money, not just read about it.
Took a company through a listing
I worked a deep-tech company through a full exchange listing process end to end — where peer-group valuation and diligence checklists were the day job. That hands-on diligence work is why the cap-table waterfall in here actually ties out, line by line.
Structure re-derived from public a16z / YC / NVCA-style memo norms and DART/EDGAR-style disclosure discipline.
If the kit isn't what this page promised, reply to your receipt within 14 days for a full refund on the download.
Email inha.journey@gmail.com — a real person answers within one business day.
This is a new kit, so there are no testimonials or user counts, and we won't invent them. Instead, everything that would normally require trust is free to inspect first: the full 64-page sample memo, both live tools, and the exact engine math. If it still isn't what this page promised, the 14-day refund makes buying reversible. You verify the work, not our word.
Questions
FAQ
Free templates exist — why pay for this?
The free ones are one-page outlines. No worked example, no stage-weighted scoring, and no cap-table math — which is the exact part they get wrong. As the calculator up top shows, a memo that skips the preference stack can be off on a single position by six or seven figures. Get that one number right on one deal and the kit has paid for itself many times over. Run the estimate and the scorecard free first, then decide.
Will this hold up in front of an LP or a partner?
Yes, because nothing hides. The scorecard is deterministic — fixed rules produce the score and the recommendation band, not an LLM — so you can walk anyone through how a number was made. The waterfall reconciles line by line (base-case proceeds = exit × diluted %, MOIC = proceeds ÷ check, IRR = MOIC^(1/years) − 1). Every weight and assumption is written down, and you can change any of them.
Will a real IC or partnership recognize this format?
The eight sections track what institutional memos actually cover — overview and thesis, market, product, team, valuation, returns, risks, recommendation. I re-derived the structure from public a16z / YC / NVCA-style frameworks, not some proprietary house style, so anyone who's sat on an IC will read it as familiar.
Who is this for, and who is it not for?
It's for emerging GPs, solo capitalists, angel-syndicate leads, scouts, and accelerator IC staff who need to hand a check-writer or an LP a written thesis on a startup that survives questions. It structures your judgment; it never renders a verdict on a security. It is not for LPs or fund-of-funds allocators evaluating GPs — this is a single-user tool for writing your own deal memo, not a diligence checklist for benchmarking managers you'd allocate to. And it won't tell you to buy or pass on a specific company. If you're on the allocator side of the table, this kit is the wrong tool for your own diligence — but there's a clear path that does fit you: hand it to the emerging managers you back so they write sharper, more reconcilable memos. That's a multi-seat licence ($79/seat at 5+, $59/seat at 20+), invoice or wire — see the multi-seat box in pricing or email inha.journey@gmail.com.
How fast do I get it?
Ordering is concierge: you leave your email, and the person who built the kit sends your card-checkout link within one business day (often same day). Once you pay, the download is delivered immediately and it's yours to keep. If you add the $349 session, we book it by email after you buy. If you need the file within the hour, this flow can't do that yet — but every buyer gets a real reply, not a bot.
Why this price, and how do I pay?
One flat fee ($99–$349), versus the $300–$600/hr a fractional CFO or fund consultant charges for the same reconciled math. You leave your email and get back a card-checkout link from a hosted merchant-of-record (Gumroad / Lemon Squeezy) that handles global VAT/sales tax and sends your receipt. Teams can pay by invoice or bank wire.