Founda21

The assessment

21 checkpoints. Five dimensions. One fixed rubric.

Every venture we assess goes through the same 21 checkpoints, organised into three stages, scored the same way every time. This page is the rubric itself — no part of it changes venture to venture.

How scoring works

Every checkpoint is scored out of 100, split evenly across five dimensions, 20 points each, every time. An AI model applies this fixed rubric, the same rubric to every venture, and produces written reasoning for each dimension score. The AI did not decide what the checkpoints ask for, that came from research into what real funders publish, see provenance and methodology. Its role is narrow: apply the rubric consistently.

Substance · 20 pts

Is the actual thing there, clearly stated, without jargon or padding?

Evidence · 20 pts

Is it backed by documented proof rather than assertion?

SA Reality Fit · 20 pts

Does it hold up under real South African conditions — load-shedding, data cost, device class, township and income realities, and local regulation?

Rigour & Coherence · 20 pts

Is it internally consistent, and does it agree with the venture's other submissions?

Investor Credibility · 20 pts

Would a real South African investor believe it?

Three stages, cleared in order

A venture can't attempt Stage 2 before clearing Stage 1, or Stage 3 before clearing Stage 2. Each checkpoint has its own pass mark; each stage also has its own average bar across all checkpoints in that stage.

Stage 1 · Idea & Reality

CP1–CP7

“Is this worth a coffee?”

Pass per checkpoint ≥ 60/100 · Stage average ≥ 70/100

Stage 2 · Company & Traction

CP8–CP14

“Is this worth diligence?”

Pass per checkpoint ≥ 60/100 · Stage average ≥ 60/100

Stage 3 · Investor & Deal Readiness

CP15–CP21

“Is this worth a term sheet?”

Pass per checkpoint ≥ 70/100 · Stage average ≥ 80/100

Stage 2 requires a venture stage of at least pre-seed to attempt, Stage 3 requires at least seed, a venture still at idea stage genuinely can't produce real traction data or a data room.

CP11 traction minimums, by venture type

B2C: at least 100 signups and 30 monthly active users. B2B: 2–3 pilots or 1–2 paying clients. Hardware: confirmed case by case against the framework, no fixed minimum published here.

All 21 checkpoints

Stage 1 · Idea & Reality CP1–CP7

Write a plain-language description of the problem you're solving: no jargon, no buzzwords, nothing an investor would need to Google. Back it with at least 10 documented sources: articles, reports, credible data, and make sure a good number of them are South African-specific (Stats SA, local news, local reports), not just global statistics. Then include real customer voice: direct quotes, interview notes, or verbatim feedback from actual South African people who live this problem, not a hypothetical persona. Keep it all consistent: your sources, your customer quotes, and your own description should be telling the same story.

Artifact: Problem-evidence document (plain-language problem + ≥10 documented sources + customer voice)

Substance — A plain-language problem statement, no jargon, no buzzwords.
Evidence — At least 10 documented sources (articles, reports, data) backing the problem.
SA Reality Fit — Sources and customer voice specifically South African, local data and SA customers, not global proxies.
Rigour & Coherence — The problem is stated clearly and holds together as one coherent argument.
Investor Credibility — An investor reading this would believe the problem is real and worth solving.

Define exactly who your customer is (demographics, behaviour, income band, and where they live), specific enough that a stranger could picture this exact person, not a vague 'young South Africans' composite. Address how data cost and device access (feature phone vs. smartphone) shape how this customer can actually use your product, and be honest about township and income realities where they apply. The more specific and consistent this profile is, the more it reads as a real, reachable customer rather than a guess.

Artifact: Customer profile document

Substance — Exactly who the customer is: demographics, behaviour, income band, location.
Evidence — Specific enough that a stranger could recognise this person in real life.
SA Reality Fit — Data cost sensitivity and device class, township/income realities addressed.
Rigour & Coherence — The profile is internally consistent, not a vague composite.
Investor Credibility — This is a customer a local investor would recognise as real and reachable.

Build a TAM/SAM/SOM estimate using assumptions calibrated to Africa/South Africa, not US or European benchmarks that don't hold here. Show your maths openly instead of just stating a final number, and cite where your figures come from. Your SOM (the slice you can realistically capture) needs to be justified against real local income levels and township realities, not inflated to sound impressive. TAM, SAM, and SOM should nest logically inside each other.

Artifact: TAM/SAM/SOM document with cited sources

Substance — A TAM/SAM/SOM estimate using Africa-calibrated assumptions.
Evidence — Maths shown, sources cited, not top-down guesses.
SA Reality Fit — SOM justified against real local income levels and township realities.
Rigour & Coherence — TAM/SAM/SOM logically nest inside one another.
Investor Credibility — The SOM is achievable, not inflated to look impressive.

Describe your proposed solution and explain, step by step, why it actually solves the problem you defined in CP1, not just that it sounds related. Be explicit about how it holds up under real South African constraints where they apply: load-shedding and infrastructure gaps, data cost, and device limitations. The connection from problem to solution should be traceable, not asserted, and the solution should read as genuinely differentiated rather than a generic idea.

Artifact: Solution hypothesis document

Substance — A clearly described proposed solution.
Evidence — Step-by-step reasoning for why it addresses the CP1 problem, not just that it sounds related.
SA Reality Fit — Holds up under load-shedding/infrastructure gaps and data cost/device constraints.
Rigour & Coherence — The logic connecting problem to solution is explicit and traceable.
Investor Credibility — The solution reads as genuinely differentiated, not generic.

Show that the solution you described in CP4 exists in some tangible form, whatever you genuinely have right now. That could be a live product link, screenshots of a working prototype, or wireframes/mockups if you haven't built anything yet. There's no minimum bar of polish, just real evidence over a description of intent. Whatever you submit needs to reflect real South African conditions: how it actually looks and works on the device, data plan, and connectivity your real target customer has, not a demo shown only under ideal conditions. A solution that's only ever been described, never shown, won't pass.

Artifact: Product evidence (live product link, screenshots, or wireframes/mockups)

Substance — Tangible evidence the CP4 solution exists: a live link, screenshots, or wireframes/mockups.
Evidence — What's submitted is genuine proof, not a description of what will eventually be built.
SA Reality Fit — Reflects real South African conditions: actual devices, data constraints, infrastructure, not an idealised demo.
Rigour & Coherence — Consistent with what's claimed in CP4, the same solution, not a different one.
Investor Credibility — This reads as something that genuinely exists, not vaporware.

Explain concretely how this venture grows beyond its first market. That could mean deeper penetration within South Africa (more provinces, cities, or customer segments), expansion into other African markets, or international expansion. Choose whichever path is genuinely right for this venture, not the most impressive-sounding one. Explain what changes and what stays the same as you grow, and name the real barriers to that specific path: regulatory, logistical, cultural, or infrastructural. This should survive a skeptical follow-up question about why this path, and not a flashier one.

Artifact: Scalability logic document

Substance — A concrete growth path beyond the first market: regional, national, continental, or international, whichever genuinely fits this venture.
Evidence — Specifics on what changes and what stays the same as the venture grows into that path.
SA Reality Fit — Real barriers named for the chosen path: regulatory, logistical, cultural, infrastructural.
Rigour & Coherence — The growth logic follows from the current venture and its actual constraints, not a generic claim.
Investor Credibility — The growth story survives a skeptical follow-up question about why this path, not a more ambitious-sounding one.

This checkpoint is about you, not your paperwork. Record a short video or voice statement plus a written statement explaining why you personally are positioned to solve this problem: your background, lived experience, or unique insight into it. Make the connection between your own story and this specific problem explicit and rooted in real, lived South African experience, not an abstract or imported narrative. That's what makes you credible as the person solving this.

Artifact: Short founder recording + written statement

Substance — A short recording plus written statement about the founder personally.
Evidence — Background, lived experience, or unique insight specific to this founder.
SA Reality Fit — Insight rooted in real, lived South African experience relevant to this problem, not an abstract or imported claim.
Rigour & Coherence — The founder's story and the venture's problem are genuinely connected.
Investor Credibility — This founder, specifically, is credible to be the one solving this.

Stage 2 · Company & Traction CP8–CP14

Provide evidence of CIPC registration, your beneficial ownership structure, signed founder agreements, and IP assignment documentation. These need to be real, dated records, not a description of your intent to file them, and not a promise to sort it out later. Everything here should be internally consistent (ownership structure matches the agreements matches the IP assignment), structured correctly under South African company law, and clean enough to survive real due diligence.

Artifact: Registration + agreement docs

Substance — CIPC registration, beneficial ownership, founder agreements, IP assignment.
Evidence — Real, dated records, not a description of intent to file them.
SA Reality Fit — Structured correctly under South African company law/registration norms.
Rigour & Coherence — Ownership and agreements are internally consistent with each other.
Investor Credibility — The legal foundation is clean enough to survive due diligence.

Document your venture's name, identity, and market positioning, and explain what specifically makes that positioning defensible against a copycat, not just what your brand looks like. Your positioning should make sense for the real South African competitive landscape and how local customers actually perceive brands here, not a template copied from a global market. Give a real reason this brand wins, not just cosmetics.

Artifact: Positioning document

Substance — Venture name, identity, and market positioning documented.
Evidence — A clear explanation of what makes the positioning defensible against a copycat.
SA Reality Fit — Positioning makes sense for the real South African competitive landscape and how local customers perceive brands.
Rigour & Coherence — Name, identity, and positioning are consistent with each other.
Investor Credibility — The positioning gives a real reason this brand wins, not just cosmetics.

Provide links to your live website, social channels, and any verifiable trust signals: reviews, press, testimonials. These need to be real, checkable URLs pasted as links, not screenshots or descriptions of plans. Make sure your presence matches how South African customers actually discover and vet a business: WhatsApp Business, Facebook/Google reviews, local marketplaces, not a presence built for a US or European audience. Everything should be live and consistent with your stated brand.

Artifact: Links + evidence

Substance — Live website, social channels, and trust signals.
Evidence — Real, checkable URLs, links, not screenshots or descriptions.
SA Reality Fit — Presence and trust signals match how South African customers actually discover and vet a business (e.g. WhatsApp Business, local reviews), not a US/European-calibrated presence.
Rigour & Coherence — All links are live and consistent with the stated brand.
Investor Credibility — The online presence reads as a real, operating business.

Report your real traction numbers for your venture type: B2C needs total signups and monthly active users (MAU); B2B needs pilots and paying clients; Hardware needs units shipped/deployed. Back every number with a written narrative explaining exactly how it was measured and where the evidence lives, an investor should be able to verify it, not just trust it. Contextualise the numbers against local income/township realities where relevant, and make sure the numbers and narrative match with no unexplained gaps. Vanity metrics won't pass, this needs to be real, verifiable traction.

Artifact: Traction data / verifiable evidence

Substance — Real traction numbers for your venture type (signups/MAU, pilots/paying clients, or units shipped).
Evidence — A written narrative explaining how each number was measured and where the evidence lives.
SA Reality Fit — Traction contextualised against local income/township realities where relevant.
Rigour & Coherence — The numbers and the narrative match, no unexplained gaps.
Investor Credibility — Traction is real and verifiable, not vanity metrics.

Document your team's roles, the gaps you still have, how each person's skills complement one another, and any advisors involved. Be honest about what's missing, not just what's staffed, a credible gap analysis matters more than pretending to be fully staffed. Your team structure should be realistic for the resourcing, salary, and skills-availability constraints of an early-stage South African venture, not assembled as if funded like a Silicon Valley startup.

Artifact: Team document

Substance — Roles, gaps, complementary skills, and any advisors.
Evidence — Specifics on who does what, not job titles alone.
SA Reality Fit — Team composition realistic for the resourcing and skills-availability constraints of an early-stage South African venture.
Rigour & Coherence — Honest about what's missing, not just what's staffed.
Investor Credibility — The team, as described, could plausibly execute this plan.

Provide evidence of POPIA compliance, tax registration, and any sector-specific regulatory requirements relevant to your venture: actual documents or confirmations, not statements of intent. This needs to be specific to South African regulatory regimes (POPIA/FSCA/CIPC as relevant) and consistent with the entity structure you documented in CP8. Nothing here should raise a red flag in due diligence.

Artifact: Compliance evidence

Substance — POPIA compliance, tax registration, sector-specific requirements.
Evidence — Actual documents or confirmations, not statements of intent.
SA Reality Fit — Compliance specific to South African regulatory regimes (POPIA/FSCA/CIPC).
Rigour & Coherence — Compliance claims are consistent with the entity structure from CP8.
Investor Credibility — Nothing here would raise a red flag in due diligence.

Show your CAC (customer acquisition cost), basic LTV (lifetime value), gross margin, and contribution margin, with the underlying assumptions and calculations visible, not just the final numbers. Your costs should reflect real local factors: data cost, infrastructure, logistics. The numbers need to be internally consistent (your LTV:CAC ratio should actually make sense) and able to survive a sharp investor doing the mental math live.

Artifact: Unit economics document

Substance — CAC, basic LTV, gross margin, contribution margin.
Evidence — Underlying assumptions and calculations visible, not just final numbers.
SA Reality Fit — Costs reflect real local factors: data cost, infrastructure, logistics.
Rigour & Coherence — The numbers are internally consistent (LTV:CAC ratio makes sense).
Investor Credibility — The unit economics would survive a sharp investor's mental math.

Stage 3 · Investor & Deal Readiness CP15–CP21

Build a 3-statement financial model: income statement, balance sheet, cash flow, constructed bottom-up from assumptions you can defend, not a top-down guess. Every material assumption needs a stated rationale, including how load-shedding/infrastructure costs are accounted for. The three statements need to tie together correctly, and the projections need to be defensible, not a hockey-stick fantasy that falls apart under questioning.

Artifact: Financial model

Substance — A 3-statement financial model (income statement, balance sheet, cash flow).
Evidence — Built bottom-up from assumptions, each with a stated rationale.
SA Reality Fit — Load-shedding/infrastructure costs explicitly accounted for.
Rigour & Coherence — The three statements tie together correctly.
Investor Credibility — The projections are defensible, not hockey-stick fantasy.

Explain what you're raising, why that specific amount, and exactly how it maps to specific milestones, folding debt, equity, and grant funding into one coherent strategy rather than disconnected asks. Reference the real South African capital landscape where it applies: Section 12J, DFIs, B-BBEE funders. The ask needs to be sized and justified in a way a real investor would take seriously, not just a round number that sounds ambitious.

Artifact: Funding strategy document

Substance — What's being raised and why that amount.
Evidence — Use of funds mapped explicitly to specific milestones.
SA Reality Fit — Reference to the real SA capital landscape (Section 12J, DFIs, B-BBEE funders).
Rigour & Coherence — Debt, equity, and grant funding folded into one coherent strategy, not disconnected asks.
Investor Credibility — The ask is sized and justified in a way a real investor would take seriously.

Explain what makes this venture defensible over time, and provide an honest catalogue of the real risks facing the business: regulatory, competitive, operational. A sanitised risk list will not pass; investors expect the real one, and naming your risks clearly is what builds credibility here, not hiding them. Make sure your risks are specific to operating in South Africa: regulatory (POPIA/B-BBEE/sector-specific), infrastructure, currency/political, informal-sector competition, not generic global startup risk boilerplate, and make sure your moat claim doesn't contradict your own risk list.

Artifact: Moat & risk document

Substance — What makes this venture defensible over time.
Evidence — An honest catalogue of real risks: regulatory, competitive, operational.
SA Reality Fit — Risks specific to operating in South Africa (regulatory, infrastructure, currency/political, informal-sector competition), not generic startup risk boilerplate.
Rigour & Coherence — The moat claim and the risk list don't contradict each other.
Investor Credibility — A sanitised risk list will not pass, investors expect the real one.

Lay out 3 to 6 concrete, dated milestones with clear accountability for who delivers what and by when. Vague roadmaps ('grow the team', 'expand market') will not pass, every milestone needs a real date and a named owner, sequenced logically rather than as a random list, and should account for real local operating realities like infrastructure dependencies.

Artifact: Roadmap document

Substance — 3 to 6 concrete, dated milestones.
Evidence — Clear accountability for who delivers what.
SA Reality Fit — Milestones account for local operating realities (e.g. infrastructure dependencies).
Rigour & Coherence — Milestones are sequenced logically, not a random list.
Investor Credibility — Vague milestones ("grow the team", "expand market") will not pass.

Upload your actual pitch deck: a real document, not typed text, along with a clear one-line proposition and narrative arc. It needs to hold together as one story an investor could repeat back to someone else after a single read, framed for the realistic South African capital landscape (Section 12J, DFIs, B-BBEE funders where relevant). The narrative needs to be compelling enough to justify a follow-up meeting, not just informative.

Artifact: Pitch deck

Substance — An uploaded pitch deck: a real document, not typed text.
Evidence — A clear one-line proposition backed by the deck's content.
SA Reality Fit — Narrative framed for the realistic SA capital landscape (Section 12J/DFIs/B-BBEE funders).
Rigour & Coherence — The deck holds together as one story an investor could repeat back after a single read.
Investor Credibility — The narrative arc is compelling enough to justify a follow-up meeting.

Provide your cap table, board structure, and an audit-ready data room: the actual files a real investor's due diligence team would expect to open on day one, not promises about what you'll prepare. This needs to be consistent with the legal entity structure you documented in CP8, and structured to meet the expectations of a local investor or DFI. A folder of promises won't pass, it needs to be genuinely audit-ready.

Artifact: Data room / cap table

Substance — Cap table, board structure, audit-ready data room.
Evidence — The actual files a due-diligence team would expect to open on day one.
SA Reality Fit — Governance structured to meet local investor/DFI expectations.
Rigour & Coherence — Cap table and governance are consistent with CP8's legal entity structure.
Investor Credibility — The data room is genuinely audit-ready, not a folder of promises.

This checkpoint is a live conversation, not a document upload. You'll answer several hard, specific investor questions one at a time, grounded in your own prior checkpoint submissions, answer exactly as you would in a real investor meeting, not with rehearsed or generic lines. Your answers need to stay consistent with everything you've claimed across CP1 to CP20, and reflect the real South African operating conditions you've already established. This is where it all needs to hold together under direct questioning.

Artifact: Recorded Q&A responses

Substance — Answering 5 to 7 hard investor questions, live, one at a time.
Evidence — Answers grounded in your own prior checkpoint submissions.
SA Reality Fit — Answers reflect real South African operating conditions established in this founder's own prior checkpoints, not rehearsed generic lines.
Rigour & Coherence — Answers are consistent with everything claimed in CP1 to CP20.
Investor Credibility — You'd hold up in a real investor meeting under direct questioning.

21 checkpoints total.

Integrity controls

A report is only useful if it's hard to game. Six structural controls run behind every assessment:

  • Retake cooldown. A venture that fails a stage waits 14 days before it can retry. It's a full waiting period, not a same-day do-over.
  • Restricted fail feedback. A founder who fails is told which checkpoints need work, never the numeric score. The score is reserved for the report you receive.
  • Artifact-first evidence. Checkpoints that claim traction, compliance, or a working product require a real link, file, or document, not a written description of one.
  • Cross-checkpoint consistency. A venture's submissions are checked against each other for contradictions, a separate pass looking for claims that don't agree.
  • Cohort similarity detection. Submissions within the same cohort are checked against each other, so copied or shared answers don't pass unnoticed.
  • Borderline second pass. A score that lands close to the pass threshold is scored a second time, independently, before the outcome is finalised.

Ready to send us your ventures?

Request an assessment