Keep fundraising materials consistent
Create a deck, memo, or financial model from one agreed set of company facts. Reconcile contradictory numbers before drafting and separate forecasts from observed results.
How this works
Create a deck, memo, or financial model from one agreed set of company facts. Reconcile contradictory numbers before drafting and separate forecasts from observed results. Use this when a deck, memo and model have drifted apart during fundraising preparation. The useful output is one agreed fact set and consistent drafts, with contradictions resolved before persuasive wording is added.
Build a claim ledger containing metric definitions, periods, sources and approval owners. Reconcile financial arithmetic and use-of-funds totals deterministically. Draft the requested materials from that ledger while labeling forecasts, assumptions and missing evidence distinctly.
Before you start
Material inventory
Collect current deck, memo, model and the requested output formats.
Authoritative facts
Identify approved financial and operating records and their owners.
Fundraising assumptions
Confirm the round amount, proposed use of funds and forecast basis.
Prepare the inputs
- materials
- Required
versioned documents and workbook references
Preserve originals and identify the latest intended versions.
- fact_sources
- Required
metric, value, period, definition and evidence
Do not combine incompatible definitions or reporting dates.
- forecast_assumptions
- Required
driver, value, scenario and owner
Keep assumptions separate from actual results.
- output_brief
- Required
audience, format and proposed ask
Do not invent commitments or investor interest.
Implementation, step by step
Extract the claims
- List every material metric, milestone and funding statement across the documents.
- Attach document location and whether it is actual, forecast or aspiration.
Checkpoint: A claim ledger exposes contradictions.
Resolve discrepancies
- Compare conflicting claims with authoritative records and ask owners about definitions.
- Leave unresolved claims marked pending rather than choose the stronger fundraising story.
Checkpoint: The agreed fact set has accountable decisions.
Reconcile the model
- Check formulas, period alignment, currency and use-of-funds totals.
- Show scenarios with explicit assumptions and separate committed spending from proposed allocation.
Checkpoint: Numerical statements agree across formats.
Draft the narrative
- Build the deck or memo around supported facts and the requested argument.
- Preserve uncertainty and avoid converting forecasts into achieved traction.
Checkpoint: The draft uses the common fact ledger.
Review across artifacts
- Compare each final number and claim with the ledger after layout changes.
- Obtain founder and finance review before external sharing.
Checkpoint: The pack has consistent versions and open questions.
Decisions along the way
Revenue definitions differ
Normalize only with owner-approved definitions and retain the original basis.
Use of funds exceeds the raise
Flag the arithmetic gap rather than silently rescale allocations.
Evidence for a proof point is absent
Remove the claim or mark it pending verification.
What you will produce
investor-materials-pack
Deck, memo or workbookConsistent drafts for the specified fundraising purpose.
Include: approved_claims · financials · assumptions · ask · status
fundraising-fact-ledger.csv
CSVThe common source of truth for future revisions.
Include: claim_id · value · period · definition · source · owner · status
Check the result
- Recalculate all allocations and financial totals.
- Check repeated metrics across deck, memo and model.
- Verify actuals and forecasts are visibly different.
- Confirm every material claim has evidence or an explicit unresolved status.
When something goes wrong
Source owner disputes a metric
Hold the affected claim and retain both definitions.
A late update changes actuals
Update the ledger first and identify dependent slides and formulas.
Model formulas break during export
Inspect the workbook and preserve a tested calculation version.
A worked example
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE · NOT A REPORTED BUSINESS RESULT
Request
Synthetic: reconcile a fundraising deck and memo.
Inputs
Deck reports 50 active accounts; memo says 60 total accounts. Approved export shows 50 active and 10 inactive. Proposed allocations are 400,000 and 250,000 against a 600,000 raise.
Expected result
Synthetic result: keep active and total accounts distinct and flag a 50,000 allocation excess. Do not change the active count to 60 or silently cut a budget line.
Run a small pilot
Start small
Reconcile one deck, memo and model for the same funding round.
Record the baseline
Record contradictions found and manual review time.
Agree success criteria
Agree claim traceability and cross-document consistency before sharing.
Stop or revise
Stop external preparation if material financial definitions remain unresolved.
Keep the scope clear
- A coherent investor pack does not verify an investment opportunity or guarantee results.
- Drafting does not authorize investor contact or financial commitments.
Check before using
A founder and finance owner verify claims, arithmetic, dates, and the proposed use of funds before sharing.
Business activities
- Raise capital or evaluate investments
FROM A RECIPE TO YOUR WORKFLOW
Bring the company context together.
This workflow needs reliable inputs before it needs a better prompt. Moat8 Vault brings working information into a readable archive for the AI tools you use.
For this recipe: Traction, pricing, and revenue records · Funding request, milestones, and spending assumptions
Start with one recurring task, agree which sources to use, and review the first result with your team.
Discuss this workflow