About FirstPass

Built so every deck gets the same honest 10 minutes.

Hi, I'm Steve. I've spent the last decade in corporate strategy and product roles across enterprise software — long enough to sit through a lot of pitches and watch a lot of deals get done (and not done) on incomplete diligence. I built FirstPass because the part I kept seeing break wasn't the analysis itself. It was that the analysis never got done in the first place.

Why this exists

The angels I know see thirty pitch decks a week. They mean to read each one. They don't. The decks that get a closer look tend to be the ones from people they already know — which is fine, but it's a filter that selects for network strength, not for company quality. The decks from outside the network stack up in a folder, get glanced at on a Sunday, and get a one-line "passing for now" reply.

That's not a thinking problem. It's a triage problem. Real diligence — checking the team's background, sizing the market honestly, pressure-testing the traction story, mapping the competitive set, surfacing the risks — takes two to three hours. Multiply that by thirty decks and you've burned the week.

FirstPass exists to make sure every deck gets the same honest ten minutes of structured analysis, even when you're looking at a stack of thirty. Not so you can skip the founder meeting — so you walk into it asking sharper questions instead of re-deriving the basics.

Methodology

How the report thinks

Every report is structured the same way, on purpose. Consistency is the whole point — when you're comparing companies, you want the same questions asked of each one, in the same order, graded against the same bar.

Team

Founder backgrounds, prior outcomes, depth on the problem they're solving. Red flags around tenure, repeat founder pattern (or lack of it), and gaps in critical roles.

Market

Honest TAM/SAM read — not the deck's number, the defensible one. Why now. Tailwinds and headwinds. The size of the opportunity if they win, and the size if they're 70% right.

Product & Business Model

What they actually built vs. what they claim. Where the wedge is. Pricing power. Whether the unit economics they're showing actually work at scale, or just at this scale.

Traction

Revenue, growth rate, retention proxies, customer concentration. Sanity-checking the numbers against industry norms — is 200% YoY growth impressive at $100k ARR (no), or at $5M ARR (yes)?

Competition

Who they're really up against, including the boring incumbents and the well-funded near-neighbors the deck doesn't mention. What forces them to win.

Risk

Regulatory, technical, market-timing, key-person, capital-stack. The things that would make this deal go to zero, ranked.

Each section closes with the same two questions: what would you need to believe for this to be a 9/10? And: what's the single sharpest question to ask the founder?

Calibration

What the score actually means

The score is calibrated against a working portfolio mindset, not against optimism. A 7/10 is a strong company most days of the week. A 9 is rare and earned.

9–10
Exceptional. Distinct edge, demonstrated traction, founder-market fit. Worth fighting for allocation.
7–8
Strong. Clear thesis, real momentum, identifiable risks you can underwrite. Most checks should land here.
5–6
Interesting but unproven. The story works, the evidence doesn’t yet. Watch-list, not check-list.
3–4
Structural problems. Fundable in a hot market, hard to defend in a cold one.
1–2
Pass. The report tells you exactly why, with the receipts.
What it catches

Things you'd miss skimming

  • Founder backgrounds that don't match the deck's claim — gaps, undisclosed prior ventures, tenure cliffs.
  • Market sizing that compounds three optimistic assumptions in a row to get to a $10B TAM.
  • Competitors the deck doesn't name — including the boring incumbents and the well-funded near-neighbors.
  • Traction metrics presented in the unit that flatters them most (cumulative downloads, "contracted" ARR, vanity growth rates).
  • Capital-stack red flags — earlier rounds at terms that bind future ones, missing-from-deck SAFEs, dilution math.
  • The single question that, if asked on the call, would have changed your read of the deal.
What it doesn't

The things you still have to do yourself

  • Founder reference calls. AI doesn't replace a 20-minute call with someone who's worked with this person.
  • Fraud detection. The report flags inconsistencies; it doesn't prove intent.
  • Reading the room. Whether you'd enjoy a 10-year relationship with this founder is a judgment call this tool can't make for you.
  • Insider information. If you've seen the cap table or the customer list, you know things this report can't.
  • Conviction. The report can sharpen yours; it can't manufacture it.

Who it's for

Yes — this is built for you
  • Active angel investors writing $10k–$100k checks
  • Syndicate leads triaging deals for their members
  • Operators who get pulled into "what do you think of this?" texts from friends
  • Solo GPs who don't have an associate
No — go elsewhere
  • Institutional firms doing $50M+ deals (you have an IC)
  • Public-markets investors
  • M&A diligence on companies with audited financials
  • Anyone looking for a tool to skip founder meetings entirely

I read every email

If you're an angel and want to try a free report on a deck you're looking at, send it over. If you're building something adjacent and want to compare notes, also send it over. If FirstPass got something wrong on a real deal, definitely send it over — that's how the model gets sharper.

steve@first-pass.ai