Dimensions P1–P6
The six questions#
| Dimension | The question it asks | Default weight | |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Problem significance | Is the pain real, urgent and specific? | 0.15 |
| P2 | Solution differentiation | Is the solution clear and meaningfully different? | 0.15 |
| P3 | Market attractiveness | Is the opportunity credible and worth pursuing? | 0.20 |
| P4 | Business model / GTM | Is there a plausible path to revenue and distribution? | 0.15 |
| P5 | Team / founder fit | Can this team credibly execute? | 0.20 |
| P6 | Feasibility / readiness | Is the plan realistic given resources, time and dependencies? | 0.15 |
The anchors#
Each dimension carries anchors for four bands — 0–3, 4–6, 7–8 and 9–10 — plus its red flags. The top band is reserved for what is demonstrated, not merely asserted. Below are the two bands juries argue about most.
P1 · Problem significance#
- A 3 looks like — no real problem articulated, or the pain is vague and unsubstantiated.
- A 7 looks like — a specific, frequent, costly pain with a clearly identified user and a credible reason it matters now.
- Red flag — "huge market therefore big problem" hand-waving; a solution in search of a problem.
P2 · Solution differentiation#
- A 3 looks like — the solution is unclear, disconnected from the problem, or a thin wrapper over an existing tool with no real advantage.
- A 7 looks like — a coherent solution with a clear mechanism and a genuine, defensible difference from alternatives.
- Red flag — feature soup with no clear core; differentiation that is purely branding.
P3 · Market attractiveness#
- A 3 looks like — no real market reasoning, no segment defined, or an obviously implausible market claim.
- A 7 looks like — a well-sized, reachable market with a clear segment, a credible entry motion and a believable path to first customers.
- Red flag — top-down "huge TAM therefore success" with no entry segment.
P4 · Business model / GTM#
- A 3 looks like — no monetization logic, or pricing that ignores the buyer.
- A 7 looks like — clear monetization, sensible pricing for the buyer, and a credible go-to-market motion with a beachhead.
- Red flag — "we will figure out pricing later" as the entire monetization story.
P5 · Team / founder fit#
- A 3 looks like — no meaningful information about the team, or an obvious mismatch between the team and what the venture requires.
- A 7 looks like — a capable, reasonably complete team with clear relevant experience and good fit to the problem.
- Red flag — credentials substituting for evidence of execution; critical roles missing with no plan.
P6 · Feasibility / readiness#
- A 3 looks like — the plan is implausible, internally inconsistent, or absent.
- A 7 looks like — a credible, well-sequenced plan with resources that broadly match the ambition, and risks acknowledged.
- Red flag — a roadmap that assumes no setbacks; ignored dependencies that gate the plan.
How a judge lands on a number#
The procedure is fixed, and it runs in this order — evidence first, number last.
- Cite the evidence. Slide-grounded facts only. Every claim points at a specific slide. No slide, no claim.
- Weigh it both ways. What supports the score, what lowers it, and what the deck leaves unclear or unproven. Missing evidence is recorded as missing — never invented, never silently forgiven.
- Name the band. "This falls in the 7-to-8 band because…" The decision is the band; the number just lives inside it.
- Then the score. Inside that band. On a boundary with material evidence missing, take the lower band — incomplete decks stay comparable instead of drifting up on benefit of the doubt.
Which judge scores which dimension#
Not every lens influences every dimension. The routing matrix — primary, secondary, advisory, not scored — is on The six judges.
Next steps#
- Criteria and weights — editing the weights, and the lock.
- Read a report — where the anchors show up in a finished report.
- For applicants — the same six questions, written for the team submitting.