| --- |
| license: cc-by-4.0 |
| language: |
| - en |
| pretty_name: Startup Application Evidence Gate Template |
| tags: |
| - startups |
| - fundraising |
| - accelerators |
| - due-diligence |
| - evidence |
| - csv |
| configs: |
| - config_name: template |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: startup-application-evidence-gate-template.csv |
| - config_name: fictional-example |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: fictional-example.csv |
| - config_name: data-dictionary |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: data-dictionary.csv |
| --- |
| |
| # 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.csv` contains 23 starter gates in |
| the `missing` state. |
| - `fictional-example.csv` demonstrates all six evidence states with synthetic |
| company data. |
| - `data-dictionary.csv` defines the 15 fields and their allowed values. |
| - `LICENSE.md` contains 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 |
|
|
| 1. Copy the template into a private working location. |
| 2. Replace the starter requirements with the programme's exact published |
| criteria. |
| 3. Keep confidential company material out of a public copy. Use internal |
| references or redacted artefacts where appropriate. |
| 4. Record the evidence date and hash so later changes are visible. |
| 5. Pair every non-supported state with one specific next artefact. |
| 6. 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. |
|
|
| [See DDScore for founders](https://www.ddscore.ai/for-founder/?utm_source=hugging-face&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ddscore-30d-jul-2026&utm_content=startup-application-evidence-gate-template-a) |
|
|
|
|
