How the matching methodology works
A short walkthrough of the scoring rubric before you dive into the gate, dimension, and rationale tables below.
Video hosted on Google Drive · requires the file to be shared as “Anyone with the link can view” to render inline.
Scoring Framework & Filter Architecture
Three hard gates eliminate structural mismatches before scoring. Seven ranked dimensions with weighted points determine match quality. Warm path modifies execution, not the score.
If any gate fires, the investor-startup pair is eliminated from the match output entirely, regardless of what score they would have received. Scoring does not run until all three gates clear.
Seven dimensions are scored after the hard gates clear. Higher-ranked dimensions carry greater weight. Maximum possible score: 14 points.
Once a match clears the Tier 2 threshold (7+ pts), execution branches on whether a warm path is available. The score determines priority; the warm path determines approach.
Execute via curated one-paragraph brief sent to the mutual connector with a permission ask. The brief maps the investor's stated thesis and recent portfolio moves to the startup's specifics. Connector vouches, investor reviews with social proof.
Execute via highly targeted, gap-framed outreach. Must explicitly reference recent portfolio moves by the VC and map the startup directly to the thesis alignment that triggered the high Sector & Thesis score. No generic pitches.
Live count of investor × company pairs filtering through the gates and the scoring layer in the current cohort. Numbers update as the data does.
Score tiers are calibrated against a maximum of 14 points. Each tier maps to a specific action protocol for the IR function.
Why weighted scoring outperforms binary matching
A binary model awards one point per signal — sector, stage, geography, and so on — treating all signals as equal. But a stage mismatch is a near-structural kill; geographic mandate exclusion is a hard structural kill; and sector adjacency is merely a weaker intro. Equating these produces false positives and wastes relationship capital on introductions that cannot convert. The weights encode what actually matters. Stage and Sector are weighted at 3 because they are the two dimensions most predictive of whether a VC has conviction and can deploy. Cheque size and Lead/Follow are at 2 because they are structural constraints that are slightly more flexible. Founder fit and Strategic Value are at 1 because they differentiate between otherwise equal matches but do not determine fundamental eligibility.
Why Fund Activity is a gate, not a scored dimension
Fund activity was absent from the previous version of this methodology. It has been elevated to a hard gate — not a scored dimension — because the question is binary: the investor is either currently deploying capital or they are not. There is no meaningful partial score for being 60% through a fund cycle or exploring a new fund. A match that cannot result in a cheque is not a match.
Why geography does two different jobs
Geographic mandate at the jurisdiction level (an investor who does not deploy in Canada) is a structural kill — it belongs at the gate layer. Regional preference within Canada is softer: an investor who primarily backs Ontario companies may still look at a BC deal if the opportunity is strong. Treating intra-Canada regional preference as a hard filter would over-exclude. Treating it as a scored dimension preserves the signal without making it eliminative.
Why Lead/Follow Fit is scored, not filtered
A follow-only investor is either a strong match or the wrong introduction entirely — determined entirely by whether the startup already has a lead in the current round. Because the correct answer depends on the startup’s situation at the time of matching, not on the investor’s preference in isolation, it cannot be a hard filter. It is scored against the startup’s actual round structure.
Why Revenue / Traction Threshold was removed
Revenue threshold is structurally redundant with Stage Fit. If stage fit is correctly defined — matching investors to the startup’s current raise stage, not future stage — a pre-revenue company will never reach an investor with a hard revenue floor, because that investor operates at a stage that has already been filtered out. Redundant dimensions in a weighted scoring model do not add signal; they double-count existing signal and distort output scores.
Why Portfolio Gap is inside Sector & Thesis, not standalone
Portfolio gap analysis asks: does this startup fill an identified gap in the investor’s existing portfolio, or does it create unwanted concentration? This is not an independent variable — it is the third layer of thesis analysis, because an investor’s receptiveness to a new deal is directly shaped by what they already own. Separating it as a standalone 1-point dimension makes it visible but structurally disconnected from the analysis it belongs to. Folding it into Sector & Thesis Fit as the third layer of a three-layer analysis is more coherent.
- Hard gates: 3 (Founder Opt-Out, Geographic Jurisdiction, Fund Activity)
- Scored dimensions: 7
- Maximum score: 14 points
- Tier 1 threshold: 11–14 pts
- Tier 2 threshold: 7–10 pts
- Tier 3 threshold: 3–6 pts
- Do Not Match: 0–2 pts or any gate triggered
- Activation modifier: Warm Path (no pts, changes execution only)