Selection committees are where many accelerator decisions are finalized. While each program differs, committees tend to follow similar patterns: they compare startups under constraints and optimize for cohort composition and fit. What committees do in practice review notes from screeners and interviews resolve disagreements and uncertainty rank startups relative to each other balance the cohort […]

In many programs and organizations, a startup is reviewed by more than one person. This changes how evaluation works, because consistency becomes a core requirement. Why multiple reviewers are used to reduce individual bias to scale review volume to compare perspectives across domains What happens when reviewers disagree Disagreement often comes from different interpretations of […]

Founders often expect programs and investors to publish clear evaluation criteria. In practice, criteria are frequently implicit, partially defined, or applied differently depending on stage and context. Why criteria stay implicit Context changes: what matters depends on stage, cohort, and constraints. Comparative decisions: criteria evolve as reviewers compare startups. Operational limits: formal criteria can slow […]

Many founders assume evaluation starts when someone is truly reviewing their startup. In practice, most processes begin with screening, not deep evaluation. What screening is designed to do Screening is a fast filtering step. The goal is to decide whether a startup is worth spending more time on. Screening usually checks: basic fit with the […]

Early-stage evaluation is difficult because most inputs are incomplete. There is limited traction, limited product maturity, and limited history to verify outcomes. Evaluators therefore focus on reducing uncertainty, not proving certainty. Uncertainty is not a problem to eliminate At the early stage, uncertainty exists across product, market, timing, and execution. Evaluators cannot remove these uncertainties. […]