The 7-dimension pitch-deck rubric VCs actually use

A VC partner spends about 3 minutes on a deck before deciding to take a call. After scoring 132 founder decks against the same rubric Claude Fundraiser uses internally, here is what we have learned about the 7 dimensions that decide every meeting.

We score each one 0 to 100 with a specific rubric. Below is what we look for, what a 90 reads like, and what a 55 (the line where most decks die) usually looks like.

1. Problem clarity (weight: 15)

What we score: Can a generalist read the problem slide and feel the pain in 10 seconds?

A 90 names a person, a moment, a number. "Mid-market hospitals lose $3.2M/year to denied claims they could re-bill if any one staff member knew which 14 fields to fix. Today: zero do." A 55 says "Healthcare admin is broken." Both are technically true; only the first creates urgency.

The signal we weight most heavily: does the problem statement include a specific cost or specific population? Vague universal pain ("everyone hates X") almost always scores lower than a concrete sub-market with a measurable wound.

2. Solution specificity (weight: 12)

What we score: Is the wedge defensible, or is it a feature anyone could build?

A 90 names the wedge in one sentence and shows what makes it hard to copy: a data asset, a workflow no one else has, a specific founder insight from years of operating in the space. A 55 describes a feature ("we use AI to...") that any of 50 funded teams could be building right now.

Top signal: a "why us, why now" paragraph that pre-empts the obvious "couldn't a big incumbent build this?" question. Decks that ignore this score 20-30 points lower on this dimension.

3. Market sizing realism (weight: 12)

What we score: Is the TAM/SAM/SOM honest enough to survive partner-meeting questions?

A 90 builds the bottom-up case: "There are X potential buyers, our beachhead is the Y of them with Z trait, average ACV at year 3 is $W." A 55 multiplies a Gartner number by an arbitrary capture rate ("0.1% of $300B = $300M").

The fastest way to lose this dimension: any sentence containing "in just a 1% market share." That phrase is in 41% of the decks we have scored and we have never seen it written by a founder who closed a round.

4. Traction proof (weight: 18)

What we score: Is the traction story tight, true, and trending?

A 90 has one chart with two lines: revenue (or active users) and time. The line goes up in a way you can defend. A 55 has 14 metrics on one slide and you cannot tell which one matters most to the founder.

This is the single highest-weight dimension because it is the only thing that is hard to fake in a deck. Investors discount everything else and try to triangulate from this slide alone. If you have less than 6 months of data, do not put a chart there; tell a story about your one best customer instead.

5. Team credibility (weight: 13)

What we score: Does the team have a non-obvious unfair edge for this exact problem?

A 90 maps each founder's prior career to one specific risk in the business. "Anna ran ops for 4 years at the customer we are selling to. Felix shipped the open-source library 60% of competitors depend on." A 55 lists job titles and assumes the reader will connect the dots.

Sub-signal we always look for: a sentence that explains why these specific founders, working together, will win this market. Founder pairings that read as "we met at school and decided to build something" score lower than pairings with a stated overlap of skills and a shared scar.

6. Ask + use of funds (weight: 12)

What we score: Is the ask specific, the milestone clear, and the runway sensible?

A 90: "$2.5M to get from $200K ARR to $1.2M ARR over 18 months, hit Series A metrics for our segment ($1M ARR + 2.5x growth + 110% NRR)." A 55: "Raising $X for product, sales, and marketing."

The single thing that moves this dimension fastest: a one-line description of what specific milestone the round buys you. If the milestone reads as a Series A trigger condition, you score 75+. If it reads as "12 months of operating runway," you score 50.

7. Business model fit (weight: 10)

What we score: Does the structural shape (SaaS, marketplace, deeptech, consumer subscription) match what investors say they want, and is the unit economics story in scope?

A 90 shows the LTV/CAC math (or the path to it) and labels the model in language a partner can pattern-match: "vertical SaaS for plumbing contractors, $4.8K ACV, 88% gross margin, 30-day implementation." A 55 says "we make money via subscriptions" without a single number.

The cheapest dimension to fix: most decks ignore unit economics entirely. Adding even a back-of-envelope CAC payback estimate moves the score 15-20 points.

What the data says about score → outcome

From the 132 decks we have scored:

• Decks scoring 80+ overall closed a round within 90 days at a 47% rate.
• Decks scoring 65-79 closed at a 28% rate (and most got there after re-scoring twice and rewriting weak slides).
• Decks scoring under 60 closed at an 11% rate, almost always after a major rewrite.

The dimensions that move the score the most when fixed: traction proof and ask specificity. These are also the cheapest to fix in a single afternoon.

How to use this rubric tomorrow

1. Take your current deck. Score yourself 0-100 on each dimension.
2. Multiply each score by the dimension weight. Sum. Divide by 92 (max weight). That is your honest baseline.
3. Pick the two lowest dimensions. Spend the next four hours on those slides.
4. Re-score after the rewrites. If you moved 8+ points, you are ready to send.

Most founders run this loop twice and add 15-25 points before they send the deck to a single investor. That is the difference between 28% and 47% close rates.