Your ask
—
what you're raising
When the passes are all “great team, a bit early for us,” it's rarely the market — it's your deck's order, the metric you lead with, and whether the ask survives ten seconds. A flat $490 report, in 48 hours, gives you:
You build the deck yourself; you get the outline, the scoring, and the fixes — not slides. A deck agency charges $5K–15K for the same kind of work.
The button doesn't charge you. Card checkout isn't live yet, so you send the basics, we email a flat-price payment link (usually same day, always within one business day), you pay, and the 48-hour clock starts then. You see the price — from $290, no success fee — before you pay a dollar.
The structural and arithmetic work is deterministic — arc scoring, metric grading, and the ask math are fixed rules, so the same inputs always produce the same output. The judgment layer is human: I read your why-now and wedge in context and review every report myself before it reaches you. The rubric for the deterministic part is public; the human read is what the free-text fields feed.
Stage, sector, traction, the size of your ask, and your story in your own words. Three minutes. No deck to upload, and nothing to re-type once you order.
The report's sections are fixed, but the content in them is computed from your inputs: the engine scores five funded-deck arcs against what you sent, re-sequences your eleven slides for the arc that wins, grades each metric against the stage bar, and checks the ask arithmetic. Then I read your narrative in context and edit before it ships — it's not boilerplate with variables swapped in.
Within 48 hours of payment: your diagnosis up front, then your arc and why it won, the re-ordered slides with what an investor checks on each, how your metrics read, the math on your ask, and a prioritized checklist to close. ~70 pages, but built to skim to the fix. A 20-minute readout call comes with it.
| Free YC / Sequoia template | IR Narrative | Deck agency / storytelling consultant | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | $0 | $490 flat | $5,000–15,000+ (or a retainer) |
| Turnaround | Instant, but DIY | 48 hours | 2–6 weeks |
| Arc chosen for your raise | One fixed slide list | ✓ Scored & selected | ✓ (consultant's judgment) |
| Metrics scored vs. stage bar | — | ✓ Deterministic, cited | Sometimes |
| Arithmetic red-flag check on the ask | — | ✓ Reproducible | Rarely quantified |
| Methodology you can audit | — | ✓ Public rubric | Opaque |
| Success fee / investor intros | None | None — flat fee only | Sometimes (conflict) |
One thing the "✓ Scored & selected" above doesn't mean: it isn't a claim that no human touches your report. The arc scoring, metric grading, and ask arithmetic are deterministic — fixed, published rules that give the same output for the same inputs, so those parts aren't my opinion and you can reproduce them from the rubric. Your free-text why-now and wedge are read by a person — that's judgment, and I say so plainly. The point of the two layers is that the numeric spine is reproducible even though the narrative read isn't; a pure-consultant engagement gives you judgment on everything with nothing to audit.
Straight about what the ~70 pages are, because the page count is the wrong thing to buy on: roughly half is a fixed diligence framework — the eleven-slide lens, the metric rubric, the ask-arithmetic method — the same reference in every report, so you can defend a number to a partner without re-deriving it. The other half is computed from your inputs: which arc won and why, your slide order, your metric grades, your flags, your checklist. You're not paying for length; you're paying for the diagnosis and the fixes, and the framework pages are there as receipts, not filler. Below are actual pages from the sample — a fictional Series A vertical-AI company, deliberately strong-but-flawed (proven beachhead, below-bar margin, soft growth, ask above band) so you can watch the engine catch real gaps. Every report shares the same framework and depth; the arc, the bars, and the flags change to fit your inputs. Scroll through, then open the full sample.
| ▶ Platform / multi-product | 6 |
| Category creation | 4 |
| Efficiency play | 2 |
| Sharp wedge → platform | 2 |
| Picks-and-shovels | 1 |
| ARR LEAD | $2.4M 🟡 |
| YoY growth LEAD | 2.7x 🔴 |
| Gross margin LEAD | 41% 🔴 |
| NDR LEAD | 121% 🟢 |
| Burn multiple LEAD | 3.4x 🔴 |
| Logo retention sup | 91% 🟢 |
| CAC payback sup | 15mo 🟡 |
This isn't a template with your logo dropped in. Every page is computed from the three-minute intake. Change one input and the arc, the slide order, the metric reads, and the flags all move. Here's which field drives which pages.
| On the order form you enter… | …and the report computes |
|---|---|
| Your one-liner, why-now & wedge | Pages 8–14: your narrative arc, scored against five funded-deck arcs, with the runner-up to avoid and your opening three slides. |
| Stage + business model | Pages 15–31: your eleven slides re-sequenced for that arc — one page each, with the diligence lens, the failure that kills it, and notes tuned to your stage/model. |
| Your metrics (ARR, NDR, margin…) | Pages 32–39: each graded against your stage bar (🟢/🟡/🔴), with the exact form to present it in and which to LEAD with. |
| The ask + runway | Pages 41–46: the arithmetic a partner runs in ten seconds — round-size band, implied dilution, revenue multiple, runway-to-next-bar — with the worked math. |
| All of the above | Pages 47–70: before/after of your deck, the roadmap & milestone timeline, your next partner call rewritten, and a prioritized this-week / 30 / 90-day checklist with copy-paste scripts. |
Every major section carries a “What you told us → what this section computed” box, so you can see your own inputs driving your own report. Numbers are engine-computed or cite a public benchmark — never invented.
Card checkout isn't live yet — request your report and we email you payment instructions and next steps within one business day. Same flat fee, nothing due until you get that email.
You request the report here; we reply with a payment link within one business day, and nothing is charged until you use it. High-ticket / team engagements can settle by bank wire against an invoice.
What the +$400 Revision tier actually gets you. After you build your deck against the Full Report outline, you send it back and get a slide-by-slide markup: each slide compared to what its section prescribed, every spot where the built deck drifts from the outline flagged with the specific fix, plus a re-run of the metric and ask checks on the numbers as they now appear on your slides — then a 45-minute working session to walk it. It's the same engine and lens as the report, aimed at your actual slides instead of your intake. If you're confident you'll execute the outline cleanly on your own, the $490 Full Report is the right tier; the revision pass is for founders who want a second read on the built artifact before they send it.
These come from the methodology, not a promise you'll raise. What you're paying for is the gaps the report catches before an investor does.
| If you're… | The most common gap we surface | What the report gives you |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-seed / seed, pre-revenue | Leading with a platform vision before the wedge is proven | The wedge-first arc + which qualitative signals (LOIs, design partners) to lead with |
| Seed, early revenue | Leading with the wrong metric (ARR vs. MoM) for the stage | The lead-metric set for your stage/model + the form each should take |
| Series A, real ARR | An ask the arithmetic can't defend, or a top-down TAM | Red-flag check on the ask + the bottom-up market math investors rebuild |
| Vertical / applied AI | Gross margin below software-grade with no path-up story | The AI-specific metric bars + how to present COGS and the margin path |
| Marketplace | Headline GMV with no take-rate, inviting the "thin marketplace" question | GMV + take-rate presentation rules and the marketplace defensibility framing |
It's a rounding error against the round it's meant to help you close, and a fraction of the $5,000–15,000 a deck agency charges for the same kind of work. It won't raise the round for you. It catches the story-order, metric, and ask problems that get decks passed on — before an investor does. The calculator up top runs that comparison against your own raise.
The scored part — arc selection, metric grading, and the ask arithmetic — is deterministic: every rule is written out on the methodology page, and the same inputs always produce the same scores and flags. On top of that sits a human read of your narrative, which is judgment, not arithmetic, and I don't pretend otherwise. The benchmark bands are the ones US venture works from, 2024–2026: Carta State of Private Markets, PitchBook-NVCA Venture Monitor, Bessemer State of the Cloud, ICONIQ Growth, OpenView/High Alpha SaaS Benchmarks, KeyBanc. Each is cited. Check them against the source before you quote a number to an investor — markets move.
They never see it. The report is your working tool. What reaches the investor is your own deck, built better. I wrote it after running raises from the operator's side of the table — taking a deep-tech company public end to end, $50M+ raised across rounds — on frameworks any partner will recognize (YC, Sequoia, a16z/NFX public writing).
Founders raising pre-seed through Series B who have a draft deck, or the raw material for one, and want a structured outside read before they go out. Skip it if you want someone to ghost-write your copy, make an investor intro, or hand you a valuation. I don't do any of those, on purpose.
48 hours from payment on a complete intake. If I miss that, reply "refund" and it's back in your account within one business day. Every intake and support email gets an answer inside one business day too.
Because this is a new service, early customers get an unconditional guarantee: read the delivered report and if it isn't worth what you paid — for any reason, not just "unusable or late" — reply within seven days and I refund you in full, no argument. "Early customer" isn't a vague phrase I can quietly walk back: it means every order placed while this page still says there are no testimonials or client count — the moment I publish real customer proof, this stronger guarantee is retired for new orders, and yours is honored on the terms in force the day you paid. You've also already seen the full sample report and the entire scoring rubric before paying, so there are few surprises. The downside of going first is on me.
The work is an engine plus a focused read from me, not weeks of agency time — so I can price it flat, well under a $5K–15K consultant and nowhere near an IPO advisor or IR retainer. Flat-fee only is a choice, not a discount: no success fee and no investor intros keeps this an editorial service and never a broker.
This is a new service, so you won't find testimonials or a client count here — and we won't fake them. That's exactly why going first shouldn't cost you: as an early customer you get an unconditional guarantee — read the delivered report and if it isn't worth what you paid, for any reason, reply within seven days and it's fully refunded, no back-and-forth. That's stronger than the standard unusable-or-late refund, and it's the deal for the first customers precisely because there's no track record yet to point to. On top of it, you inspect the whole thing before paying a dollar: the full sample report, the entire scoring rubric, and a source citation on every benchmark you can open yourself. You're not trusting a promise — you check the method against the output, and if the output disappoints, you're made whole.
Written by an IR / Corporate Development operator with direct experience of taking a deep-tech company public end to end and raising $50M+ across venture rounds, plus venture fund-formation work — but you don't have to take the background on faith. The part that actually decides your report is the method, and it's fully public: the scoring rubric is written out signal-by-signal, every benchmark band cites the source report you can open yourself, and the full sample shows the exact output before you pay. If it doesn't hold up on inspection, the guarantee refunds you. Reach the operator directly at inha.journey@gmail.com — every enquiry gets a reply within one business day. Fluent in English and Korean. The frameworks themselves are restated from public knowledge (exchange/disclosure rules, SEC/EDGAR, textbook finance, YC/NVCA public writing).
A ~70-page IR-narrative & pitch-deck outline report you build your deck against, delivered in 48 hours. Flat $490 — refunded if it's unusable. You send the basics, we email a payment link, then the clock starts.