{"version":"v1","scale":"Each category is scored 1-10 using the level descriptions; the total is the sum out of 100.","categories":[{"id":"product","name":"Product & Technology","instructions":"Score the strength, differentiation, and reliability of the core product and technology, using public product pages, docs, changelogs, status pages, and independent reviews.","levels":[{"score":1,"description":"No working product in public view"},{"score":2,"description":"Early prototype; core use case unproven"},{"score":3,"description":"Works for narrow cases; frequent gaps or outages"},{"score":4,"description":"Usable but undifferentiated; clear competitor parity gaps"},{"score":5,"description":"Solid product at parity with the category"},{"score":6,"description":"Good product with at least one notable strength"},{"score":7,"description":"Strong product; clear technical edge in one area"},{"score":8,"description":"Best-in-class in its core use case; reliable and fast-shipping"},{"score":9,"description":"Category-defining product; others copy it"},{"score":10,"description":"Dominant, hard-to-replicate technology with proven reliability at scale"}]},{"id":"market","name":"Market Opportunity","instructions":"Score the size, growth, and timing of the market the company serves, using public market data and demand signals. Judge the market, not the company.","levels":[{"score":1,"description":"No identifiable market"},{"score":2,"description":"Tiny niche with no growth"},{"score":3,"description":"Small market, slow growth"},{"score":4,"description":"Modest market or unclear demand"},{"score":5,"description":"Mid-sized market with steady growth"},{"score":6,"description":"Large market or fast growth, not both"},{"score":7,"description":"Large and growing market"},{"score":8,"description":"Very large, fast-growing market with urgent demand"},{"score":9,"description":"Massive market in a clear growth wave"},{"score":10,"description":"Generational market shift with the company at its center"}]},{"id":"traction","name":"Traction & Growth","instructions":"Score public evidence of adoption, revenue, growth, and retention: usage stats, customer logos, traffic, downloads, revenue disclosures, and credible reporting.","levels":[{"score":1,"description":"No evidence of users"},{"score":2,"description":"Handful of users or pilots"},{"score":3,"description":"Small user base, flat"},{"score":4,"description":"Early adoption with weak growth signals"},{"score":5,"description":"Clear adoption, moderate growth"},{"score":6,"description":"Solid adoption with consistent growth"},{"score":7,"description":"Strong growth and recognizable customers"},{"score":8,"description":"Rapid growth with strong retention signals"},{"score":9,"description":"Category-leading adoption and growth"},{"score":10,"description":"Exceptional, compounding growth at large scale"}]},{"id":"model","name":"Business Model","instructions":"Score how the company makes money and whether the unit economics look sustainable, using pricing pages, disclosed margins, and credible reporting.","levels":[{"score":1,"description":"No revenue model"},{"score":2,"description":"Revenue model undefined or unproven"},{"score":3,"description":"Revenue exists but economics look negative"},{"score":4,"description":"Thin margins or heavy dependence on subsidies"},{"score":5,"description":"Viable model with average economics"},{"score":6,"description":"Clear pricing and healthy expected margins"},{"score":7,"description":"Strong model with good expansion revenue"},{"score":8,"description":"Excellent unit economics and pricing power"},{"score":9,"description":"Highly profitable model with durable pricing power"},{"score":10,"description":"Exceptional, self-reinforcing economics at scale"}]},{"id":"moat","name":"Competitive Moat","instructions":"Score what protects the company from competitors: network effects, switching costs, data or supply advantages, and brand.","levels":[{"score":1,"description":"No defensibility; easily copied"},{"score":2,"description":"Minimal barriers"},{"score":3,"description":"Weak barriers; many close substitutes"},{"score":4,"description":"Some brand or feature lead, easily eroded"},{"score":5,"description":"Moderate barriers from one source"},{"score":6,"description":"Meaningful barriers from one strong source"},{"score":7,"description":"Multiple reinforcing barriers"},{"score":8,"description":"Strong network effects or switching costs"},{"score":9,"description":"Deep, compounding moat hard to attack"},{"score":10,"description":"Near-monopoly position with reinforcing moats"}]},{"id":"team","name":"Team & Execution","instructions":"Score leadership quality and execution record, using public leadership bios, hiring activity, shipping cadence, and delivery on stated plans.","levels":[{"score":1,"description":"No identifiable team"},{"score":2,"description":"Team unknown or clearly missing key roles"},{"score":3,"description":"Inexperienced team with poor delivery record"},{"score":4,"description":"Capable team with gaps; uneven execution"},{"score":5,"description":"Competent team with steady execution"},{"score":6,"description":"Experienced team with a good delivery record"},{"score":7,"description":"Strong team; consistently ships on plan"},{"score":8,"description":"Top-tier team attracting top talent"},{"score":9,"description":"Exceptional team with a proven scaling record"},{"score":10,"description":"Legendary team with repeated category-defining execution"}]},{"id":"finance","name":"Financial Strength","instructions":"Score funding, runway, and capital efficiency, using disclosed funding rounds, investors, revenue, and credible reporting.","levels":[{"score":1,"description":"Distressed or insolvent signals"},{"score":2,"description":"Unfunded with no revenue"},{"score":3,"description":"Minimal funding, short runway"},{"score":4,"description":"Some funding; runway or efficiency concerns"},{"score":5,"description":"Adequately funded for the near term"},{"score":6,"description":"Well funded with reasonable efficiency"},{"score":7,"description":"Strong funding and top investors"},{"score":8,"description":"Large reserves and efficient growth"},{"score":9,"description":"Profitable or deeply capitalized with top backers"},{"score":10,"description":"Fortress balance sheet and self-funding growth"}]},{"id":"ecosystem","name":"Ecosystem & Community","instructions":"Score developer, partner, and community pull, using open-source activity, community size and engagement, integrations, and partnerships.","levels":[{"score":1,"description":"No community or partners"},{"score":2,"description":"Negligible community activity"},{"score":3,"description":"Small, inactive community"},{"score":4,"description":"Some community with limited engagement"},{"score":5,"description":"Active community of moderate size"},{"score":6,"description":"Engaged community and useful integrations"},{"score":7,"description":"Large community and strong partner network"},{"score":8,"description":"Thriving ecosystem that drives distribution"},{"score":9,"description":"Ecosystem hub for its category"},{"score":10,"description":"Industry-standard ecosystem others build on"}]},{"id":"risk","name":"Risk & Resilience","instructions":"Score exposure to regulatory, dependency, concentration, and security risk. A higher score means lower risk and stronger resilience.","levels":[{"score":1,"description":"Existential risk evident"},{"score":2,"description":"Severe unmitigated risks"},{"score":3,"description":"Major risks with weak mitigation"},{"score":4,"description":"Notable risks, partly mitigated"},{"score":5,"description":"Typical risks for the category"},{"score":6,"description":"Risks known and reasonably managed"},{"score":7,"description":"Low risk with good mitigation"},{"score":8,"description":"Very low risk; strong security and compliance posture"},{"score":9,"description":"Highly resilient with diversified dependencies"},{"score":10,"description":"Exceptionally resilient; risk is negligible"}]},{"id":"fit","name":"Strategic Fit","instructions":"Score fit with the Reese Portfolio thesis and the potential to partner, invest, or build on the company. Judge fit, not overall quality.","levels":[{"score":1,"description":"Conflicts with the thesis"},{"score":2,"description":"No relevance to the thesis"},{"score":3,"description":"Marginal relevance"},{"score":4,"description":"Some relevance, low potential"},{"score":5,"description":"Relevant with moderate potential"},{"score":6,"description":"Good fit with clear potential"},{"score":7,"description":"Strong fit and clear action path"},{"score":8,"description":"Very strong fit; high-priority opportunity"},{"score":9,"description":"Core to the thesis; act soon"},{"score":10,"description":"Perfect fit; top priority for action"}]}]}