How Applications Are Reviewed
Every application submitted through Narrative Intelligence is automatically processed before a human reviewer opens it. This page gives an overview of what happens and what the platform produces.
The pipeline
Section titled “The pipeline”After a founder submits, their application moves through a short processing pipeline:
| Status | What’s happening |
|---|---|
| Pending | Received and queued for processing |
| Processing | The platform is actively analysing the submission |
| Complete | Analysis is done — a full report is available |
| Failed | Something went wrong. An admin can retry from the submission detail page. |
Most submissions complete within a few minutes.
What the platform produces
Section titled “What the platform produces”Once processing is complete, each submission has a report made up of four things.
Programme fit score
Section titled “Programme fit score”The fit score measures how well the founder and their idea match what your programme is looking for.
It is built directly from the fit criteria you configure on your application form — dimensions like “Founder-Market Fit” or “Social Impact Potential,” each with a weight you define. The platform scores the applicant across every dimension and combines them into a single overall fit score using those weights.
A high fit score means this is a strong candidate for your specific programme, not just a strong idea in the abstract.
Idea strength
Section titled “Idea strength”Strength is a broader assessment of the business idea’s quality, independent of your programme criteria. It scores the application across five dimensions, each assessed on the quality of evidence — not the ambition of the idea:
| Dimension | What it looks at |
|---|---|
| Customer clarity | How specific and grounded the founder’s understanding of their customer is — demographics, situation, behaviour — versus broad or generic claims |
| Problem strength | Whether the problem is demonstrably costly and frequent, with real evidence from observation or conversation |
| Value transformation | How clearly the product produces a specific, meaningful change for the customer — functional, emotional, or both |
| Payment logic | Whether there is a clear, grounded reason someone would pay — at a named price point, given what they currently do instead |
| Feasibility | Whether the idea can actually be built and delivered given real-world constraints — infrastructure, regulation, cost structure |
Each dimension is scored independently. A strong score in one area does not compensate for a fundamental gap in another. The overall strength score is the average across all five.
A strong idea score doesn’t mean the founder is the right fit for your programme — that’s what the fit score captures. Strength reflects the quality of the idea and the evidence behind it on its own terms.
Verdict
Section titled “Verdict”The verdict is the platform’s overall read on whether this founder is the right fit for your programme at this point in time. It brings together the fit score, idea strength, and the quality of evidence across the application.
There are five possible verdicts:
| Verdict | What it means |
|---|---|
| Cohort perfect | Strong fit on both programme criteria and cohort profile — hard requirements met, support alignment covered |
| Right founder, wrong intake | Strong programme match but a weak cohort match — theme, stage, or geography misaligns with this round |
| Criteria met, mission unclear | The rubric is satisfied but the founder sits oddly against your programme’s ethos |
| Evidence incomplete | Hard criteria are unanswered — not a rejection, but the application doesn’t give enough to decide |
| Declined with routing | Neither fit nor strength is sufficient, or a hard requirement is directly contradicted |
Each verdict comes with a specific output to help your team act on it — a probe question, a hold note, interview questions for gaps, or a routing note toward a better-fit programme. The verdict is a recommendation. Your team makes the final call.
Guard rail flags
Section titled “Guard rail flags”Guard rails are eligibility checks attached to specific questions on your application form. When an applicant’s answer fails one of these checks, a flag appears on their report.
Each flag shows the question, the applicant’s answer, and the label you configured — for example “Outside target location” or “Business not yet registered.” The check itself is deterministic: the platform compares the answer against the rule you set (an exact value, a number range, a list of allowed options, a date range, or a location) and either passes or flags it.
There is also an automatic sector consistency check that runs on every submission. If the sector the applicant declares on the form doesn’t match the sector the platform infers from their business description, a warning appears for reviewer attention.
Flags don’t automatically disqualify an applicant — they’re a signal for your team to look more carefully before making a decision. A submission with one or more flags will show an eligibility warning in the submissions list so reviewers can prioritise accordingly.
What comes after
Section titled “What comes after”Once a submission is Complete, your reviewers can open the full report, read the platform’s analysis alongside the applicant’s answers, and make an approval or rejection decision. See Reviewing Applications.