field stringlengths 5 18 | type stringclasses 4
values | allowed_values stringlengths 9 336 | meaning stringlengths 27 59 |
|---|---|---|---|
gate_id | string | unique non-empty identifier | Stable identifier for one application gate |
gate_group | enum | eligibility|team|problem_solution|traction|market|governance|fundraising|application_control | Workflow group for the gate |
ddscore_dimension | enum | business_idea|offering|team|market|competitors|technology_ip|scalability|legal_regulatory|presentation|financials|fundability | Closest DDScore review dimension used only for organisation |
requirement | string | programme-specific text | Exact requirement or review question |
current_state | enum | supported|partial|missing|conflicting|stale|not_applicable | Current state of the cited evidence |
evidence_ref | string | internal URI path or redacted reference | Pointer to the reviewed artefact |
evidence_type | enum | official_register|signed_statement|application_answer|team_record|customer_research|product_record|demo_record|metric_export|financial_record|pipeline_export|market_analysis|competitor_analysis|legal_record|regulatory_review|cap_table|funding_record|use_of_funds|milestone_plan|financial_model|cross_check_log|review_rec... | Kind of evidence expected or reviewed |
observed_at | date | ISO 8601 date or blank | Date represented by the evidence |
evidence_hash | string | hash or blank | Content fingerprint used to detect later change |
owner | string | role or person identifier | Owner responsible for the evidence or repair |
freshness_days | integer | positive whole number | Selected age window for this review |
reason_code | enum | evidence_confirmed|evidence_partial|evidence_missing|evidence_conflict|evidence_stale|gate_not_applicable|human_review_pending | Machine-readable reason for the state |
next_artifact | string | specific artefact or blank | Next evidence item needed to repair the gate |
reviewer_decision | enum | unreviewed|proceed|repair|ineligible|manual_review|not_applicable | Separate human workflow decision |
reviewer_rationale | string | free text | Reason recorded by the named human reviewer |
Startup Application Evidence Gate Template
An accelerator, incubator or funding application is easier to repair when each requirement stays attached to its evidence, date, state, owner and remaining human decision. This open CSV resource gives pre-seed and seed founders 23 starter gates for that review.
Programme criteria differ. These rows are not universal eligibility rules. Replace, add or remove gates to match the programme's published requirements.
Files
startup-application-evidence-gate-template.csvcontains 23 starter gates in themissingstate.fictional-example.csvdemonstrates all six evidence states with synthetic company data.data-dictionary.csvdefines the 15 fields and their allowed values.LICENSE.mdcontains the CC BY 4.0 licence notice.
Evidence States
supported: the cited evidence supports the stated requirement and is current for this review.partial: some required support exists, but a named part is absent.missing: no reviewable evidence reference is recorded.conflicting: two or more sources disagree.stale: the evidence is older than the selected freshness window.not_applicable: a named reviewer has recorded why the gate does not apply.
The state belongs to the evidence record. It is not an acceptance prediction.
The reviewer_decision field keeps the human decision separate from the state.
Suggested Workflow
- Copy the template into a private working location.
- Replace the starter requirements with the programme's exact published criteria.
- Keep confidential company material out of a public copy. Use internal references or redacted artefacts where appropriate.
- Record the evidence date and hash so later changes are visible.
- Pair every non-supported state with one specific next artefact.
- Leave eligibility and the final go or no-go decision to the named human reviewer.
Limits
This template does not verify an evidence file, decide programme eligibility, predict acceptance, calculate a DDScore, provide investment advice or replace a programme reviewer, founder judgement, investor judgement or full due diligence. The fictional example is synthetic. It contains no real company or personal data.
For a separate outside first pass, DDScore turns submitted private-company materials into a structured 0–100 Due Diligence Score and full written report across 12 dimensions. It checks relevant claims against current public sources and shows confidence and gaps.
Disclosure: I work on DDScore at Playful Pixels Oy.
- Downloads last month
- 46