Reviewing Applications

Once a submission reaches Complete status, your team can open the full report and make a decision. This page explains every section of the report and how to use it.

Who can review applications

Role	Can view reports	Can approve or reject
Admin	Yes	Yes
Reviewer	Yes	Yes
Viewer	Yes	No

Finding submissions to review

Go to your cohort and click the Applications tab. You’ll see a list of all submissions with their pipeline status, fit score, strength score, and verdict.

Use the filters to narrow down what you’re looking at:

Status — pipeline status (Complete, Processing, Pending, Failed)
Review status — decision state (Pending review, Approved, Rejected)
Fit score — High, Moderate, or Low
Strength — Strong, Promising, Unclear, or Weak
Eligibility — flagged or unflagged submissions

Quick actions from the list

Right-click any application card in the list to open a context menu with three actions:

Add to folder — save this application into an existing folder for batch review (see Folders)
Copy link — copy the direct URL to this application’s report to your clipboard
Go to report — open the full report page

The report page

Click any submission to open its full report. The page has two sides: the platform’s analysis on the left, and the applicant’s raw answers on the right. Everything you need to make a decision is here.

Business summary

At the top of the report is a short paragraph — 2 to 3 sentences — summarising the applicant’s business in the platform’s own words, derived from their answers. Read this first to orient yourself before looking at the scores.

The verdict

Directly below the summary is the verdict — the platform’s overall read on whether this founder is the right fit for your programme at this point in time.

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 the founder’s stage, theme, or geography misaligns with this specific 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 rendering — a specific output to help your team act:

Cohort perfect → the single most important thing to probe after admission
Right founder, wrong intake → a hold note naming the better-fit intake
Criteria met, mission unclear → one interview question that resolves the ambiguity
Evidence incomplete → named interview probes per gap, plus any form blind spots
Declined with routing → a routing note toward a better-fit direction

The verdict is a recommendation. Your team makes the final decision.

Scores

Below the verdict are two scores.

Programme Fit score — a number out of 100 reflecting how well this founder matches your programme’s selection criteria. It is built from the weighted fit dimensions you configured on your form. A high fit score means a strong match for your specific programme — not just a strong idea.

Beneath the overall fit score you’ll see each fit dimension broken out individually — the score for each criterion and the relative weight it carries. This tells you which dimensions drove the overall score up or down, so you can see at a glance where the match is strongest and where it falls short.

Idea Strength score — a score out of 5 reflecting the quality and grounding of the business idea, independent of your programme criteria. It is broken into its five dimensions:

Dimension	What it measures
Customer clarity	How specific and grounded the founder’s understanding of their customer is
Problem strength	Whether the problem is demonstrably costly and frequent, with real evidence
Value transformation	How clearly the product produces a specific, meaningful change for the customer
Payment logic	Whether there is a grounded reason someone would pay at a named price point
Feasibility	Whether the idea can actually be built given real infrastructure and regulatory constraints

Each dimension has a score and a commentary — the commentary explains exactly what evidence is present, what is missing, and why the gap matters. This is the most useful part of the strength analysis for a reviewer.

Guard rail flags

If any eligibility checks failed on this submission, they appear here as flags. Each flag shows:

The question
What the applicant answered
The flag label explaining what requirement wasn’t met

A flagged submission is not automatically disqualified. The flags are a prompt to look more carefully before deciding.

If the submission has no flags, this section won’t appear.

The Founder Readiness story

Below the scores is the Founder Readiness story — a 400 to 600 word narrative written by the platform for your team, not the applicant. It is not a summary of the scores; it renders the founder in motion.

The story follows a five-movement structure:

The world — the specific market condition the venture is entering, grounded in real behaviour, channels, or alternatives
The founder in motion — who they are and what they are doing, stated through action rather than biography
Contact with reality — the hard evidence: conversations held, pilots run, customers paying, what people currently do instead
What remains — the material gaps, stated as plain facts with time-to-close estimates (“a clock of weeks”, “a clock of months”)
The decision point — what admitting this founder entails, handed to your team to decide

The story deliberately does not give a verdict or advice. Its job is to give your reviewers a clear picture of the person and the evidence so they can make their own call.

Beneath the full story is a story capsule — a 3 to 5 sentence version that appears in the triage view: who the founder is, what they’re building, the strongest piece of evidence, the key remaining gap, and an honest stage assessment.

The applicant’s answers

On the right side of the report — or below the analysis on smaller screens — are the applicant’s raw answers to every question on the form, organised by section.

Read these alongside the analysis. The scores and story are derived from these answers; going back to the source lets you check the platform’s reading and catch anything it may have weighted differently than you would.

Making a decision

Once you’ve read the report, the decision controls are in the header at the top of the page.

Approving

Click Approve to accept the applicant into the programme.

What happens immediately:

The submission is marked as Approved
An approval email is sent to the applicant

Rejecting

Click Reject to decline the application. You must provide a reason — this is included verbatim in the rejection email sent to the applicant. Write it as you would want to communicate it directly to the founder: honest, specific, and without jargon.

What happens immediately:

The submission is marked as Rejected
A rejection email is sent to the applicant with your reason

Reviewer notes

While reading a report, you can leave private notes visible only to your team — useful for flagging concerns, recording a gut reaction before deciding, or coordinating with a co-reviewer.

Click the Notes button in the action bar at the top of the page to open the notes panel. It slides in from the right and shows all existing notes for this submission, most recent at the bottom.

Type your note in the composer at the bottom and press Add note. Notes are timestamped and attributed to you by name.

Hover over any note you wrote and click the delete icon to remove it. You can only delete your own notes.

Seeing all decisions at a glance

The cohort Overview tab shows a summary of your pipeline decisions — how many are approved, rejected, and still pending review. Use it to track your team’s progress through a cohort.