Investor Question Map

Cross-call synthesis of what investors ask, how often, and how well we answer.

Last updated: 2026-02-19 Calls analyzed: 10 (Battery Ventures 1/13, Primary Ventures 1/30, Refract VC 2/5, NextGen VP 2/5, Tau Ventures 2/6, Sorensen Capital 2/6, Norwest VP 2/6, Seae Ventures 2/17, Define Ventures 2/18, Wavemaker 360 2/19)

---

Question Frequency

Ranked by how often each question/theme comes up across calls.

---

Thematic Clusters

Scalability / Business Model — THE #1 QUESTION

Asked in 3 of 6 calls. Now answered well. Must standardize on the Tau version.

• Refract (Caesar): "How much can you redeploy vs. customizing every build?" — wanted to hear platform components
• NextGen (Deborah): "Is there a roadmap to decreasing services upfront? Or are we investing in a tech-enabled consulting firm?" — most pointed version yet
• Tau (Sam): "How do you scale 1-10? Are you still receiving payments after FDE?" — got the BEST revenue breakdown yet
• Thomas's answer to Deborah: "We're still figuring this out too" — the worst answer we've given on anything
• Thomas's answer to Sam: SaaS fee 5-10% + implementation fee (rate card, discount to Palantir) + maintenance/licensing fee ~50-60% of contract. Sam said it made sense. — the BEST answer we've given
• Pattern: This question comes in two flavors. Friendly investors ask "what's the platform?" Skeptical investors ask "are you just consulting?" The Tau revenue breakdown answers BOTH flavors.
• Action: Standardize on the Tau version. The specific revenue components (SaaS + implementation + maintenance) make this tangible. Never revert to "still figuring it out."

Contract / Revenue Specifics — NOW ANSWERED

Asked in 3 of 6 calls. The Tau call produced the breakthrough framework.

• Primary: Vague on pricing model
• Refract: "Small" contract, terms not laid out
• Norwest: Bayan asked about contract structure — answer was decent but still TBD on specifics
• Tau: SaaS fee 5-10% + implementation fee (rate card, Palantir discount positioning) + maintenance/licensing ~50-60%. This is the framework to use going forward.
• Pattern: Investors want to see the revenue engine, not just the first contract. The three-component model (SaaS + implementation + maintenance) gives them a scalable picture.

Product / Demo — A STRATEGIC ASSET

Tested in 3/6 calls with dramatically different outcomes. Deploy based on investor type.

• Refract: Demo crushed it. Copilot framing immediately understood and loved.
• Sorensen: No demo shown. But Chris drew SNF parallels unprompted from his portfolio — problem understanding carried the conversation. Demo was unnecessary.
• Norwest: Demo failed (localhost wouldn't load). Bayan is product-focused (physics background) and explicitly said demo is important for him. This was a BIG miss.
• Tau: No demo, not needed. Conversation was business model and market-focused.
• NextGen: No demo shown. Deborah's assessment was more abstract and skeptical as a result.
• Primary: No demo. But FDE model was understood through description.
• The demo is a strategic asset — deploy it based on investor type. Product-focused investors (Bayan, Caesar) need it early — it converts skepticism into conviction. Thesis-driven investors (Chris, Sam) may not need it at all — they're evaluating the business, not the product. For product-focused investors: have a deployed demo URL or pre-recorded video as backup. Never depend on localhost again.

Vision / End State

Emerged forcefully with NextGen. Only 1/6 pushed hard on this. Others accepted the stage.

• NextGen (Deborah): "You need a pretty clear vision of the end state and a strong opinion on the direction the market is headed." She explicitly said the pitch lacks this.
• Thomas's real-time payer-provider integration vision is big but didn't land as crisp
• Her coaching: frame it as "hypotheses to test" not certainties. That's a useful reframe for seed stage.
• Deep vs. broad — Deborah pushed for a choice. Thomas gave both. Need to pick a lane (or frame the sequence clearly: deep first → broad after).
• Note: No other investor pushed this hard. May be Deborah's lens specifically, not universal. Still worth tightening.

Positioning / Written Materials

New pattern from Tau. Critical finding.

• Tau (Sam): "From the blurb it's like, so they're building a wrapper on an LLM." The written materials trigger "wrapper" fear that the verbal pitch does NOT.
• Michael's observation: "The way we pitch to customers is different than how we'd talk to VCs. You're probably seeing some of that."
• The business is better than how it's described. The deck/blurb needs a rewrite to match the verbal pitch quality. This is a fixable problem but urgent — investors read materials before calls and form first impressions.

GTM / Sales Motion

Sensitive area. Different concerns per investor type.

• Primary (Hannah): Payer GTM skepticism — J2 Health trauma. Concern: can you sell to payers at all?
• NextGen (Deborah): More generic — "what's the GTM approach?" Accepted founder-led + clinical hire as reasonable.
• Sorensen (Chris): Asked about selling to hospitals vs. payers. Got clear payer-first rationale. Chris understood the logic immediately.
• Refract: Didn't probe GTM — pre-sold from portfolio (Charter Health)
• Tau, Norwest: Not a primary concern
• Pattern: Healthcare-specialist investors worry about payer sales specifically. Thesis-driven investors who understand the problem space accept the payer-first rationale quickly.

Differentiation / Moat

Tested for the first time live with NextGen. Not recurring.

• Deborah opened with: "Hard to differentiate... underlying models are the same... hard to find things super differentiated and long-term defensible"
• Thomas raised the moat problem HIMSELF in the call — honest but may plant doubt
• No other investor (0/5 others) raised differentiation as a concern
• May be a Deborah-specific lens rather than a universal pattern. But worth having the answer ready.

Team / Execution

Universally positive across all 6 calls. Zero concern. Best signal.

• Primary: Impressed by two-person team with real client
• Refract: "Catnip for us" — bootstrapping, coding, commitment
• NextGen: Less effusive but didn't challenge. "Approaching it thoughtfully."
• Tau: Implicit — Sam's personal warmth reflects respect for founders
• Sorensen: Chris was impressed by bootstrapping and team quality
• Norwest: Bayan engaged on technical level — product-first thinking resonated
• Both founders build reads as strength (confirmed 10/10 calls)

Market Size / Timing

Timing is universally validated. Market size numbers still missing.

• Refract: Caesar flagged market size as an open question
• Market timing is universally accepted — multiple investors validating from their own networks:
  • Refract: JP Morgan + Charter Health
  • Tau: Cigna contact says payer tech is "absolute trash" and pilots die from integration complexity
  • Tau: AI doctor regulatory shift in Utah
  • Sam's overall market view aligns
• TAM numbers are still missing. But "why now" has never been challenged.

Fundraise

Tested in 3/6 calls. No concerns.

• $2M target is clear. Use of funds (2 PhDs + Cassie) is specific.
• Caesar stress-tested the $1M scenario — we passed.
• Chris probed milestones: 24 months, 3-4x clients. Strong answer.
• NextGen: Deborah confirmed we're a fit for stage and sector.
• Tau: Sam framed valuation math (15-20% dilution, ~5x round size). Not investing this round but validates framing.

---

Questions We Haven't Gotten Yet (But Will)

• "What are the unit economics?" — Not yet modeled. Getting urgent.
• "What's the competitive landscape specifically?" — TESTED with Seae (2/17) and Wavemaker (2/19). Karlos asked directly about prior auth creep into concurrent. Thomas's answer was strong: prior auth companies aren't competitors, payer already automated PA, real comps are consulting orgs + Palantir. Cohere/Cahir trying for 2 years but hasn't cracked it. Karlos said competition will be THE diligence question for their team. Wavemaker: Michelle confirmed not many payer-focused seed startups. Shared Anterior Health intel ($40M raise, no real customers as of ~1 year ago). Need one-pager ready.
• "How does accuracy/reliability work in healthcare?" — Have answer, not yet tested live.
• "What's the data strategy / compounding advantage?" — TBD in FAQ.
• "How do you think about hiring?" — Answered: 2 PhDs + Cassie. Strong (Sorensen especially).
• "How much are you raising?" — $2M, tested 4x (including Seae). Strong.
• "Why this wedge?" — Strong answer, tested with NextGen.
• "What's the revenue model?" — SaaS + implementation + maintenance. Nailed with Tau. Standardize.
• "What does your ideal investor look like?" — Tech + healthcare experience, opens doors. Strong (Sorensen).

---

Meta-Patterns

What Lands (confirmed across 10 calls)

• Founder grit — bootstrapping, coding, living together, both build. Universal (10/10).
• Copilot / catalyst framing — investors immediately get the GTM advantage (when used)
• Premera as proof point — named client, named champions, on their roadmap
• Payer pressure narrative — validated by investors' own market intelligence (Refract: JP Morgan/Charter, Tau: Cigna contact, Sorensen: SNF portfolio)
• Live demo — converts skepticism into excitement for product-focused investors. Deploy strategically based on audience.
• UM wedge rationale — the "why this?" answer is strong
• Revenue breakdown (Tau version) — SaaS + implementation + maintenance makes the model tangible. Best scalability answer to date.
• Payer-first rationale — when asked (Battery, Sorensen, Refract), the logic is clear and accepted (3/3)
• Problem framing — Chris (Sorensen): "Huge problem, messy, sounds like a good opportunity." Investors who understand the problem space get excited.

What Creates Friction (emerging pattern)

• Positioning / blurb (1/6 but critical) — written materials trigger "wrapper on LLM" fear that verbal pitch doesn't. Business is better than how it's described. Fix the deck/blurb.
• Demo reliability (1/6 but preventable) — localhost failure with Norwest. Must have deployed URL or video backup for product-focused investors.
• Vision clarity (1/6) — need stronger end-state + deep vs. broad resolution. Only NextGen pushed this.
• "Still figuring it out" (1/6) — never say this about the business model again. The Tau revenue breakdown eliminated this gap.
• Moat / differentiation (1/6) — don't raise the problem without immediately delivering the answer
• Market size (1/6) — need TAM numbers
• Contract specifics in early calls (2/6) — now addressed by Tau framework. Must internalize.

What We Now Know (after 6 calls)

• "Both founders build" reads as strength (confirmed 10/10)
• Competition question is now CONFIRMED as a recurring diligence item (Seae 2/17 + Refract 2/5). Need competitive one-pager for future calls.
• The demo is a strategic asset — deploy based on investor type. Product-focused investors (Bayan, Caesar) need it early. Thesis-driven investors (Chris, Sam) may not need it at all.
• Investors with payer portfolio exposure or problem-space familiarity skip GTM skepticism → go straight to scalability or business model
• Generalist health-tech investors lead with differentiation skepticism (but only 1/6 — may not be universal)
• The "services vs. SaaS" question comes in two flavors: friendly ("what's the platform?") and adversarial ("are you just consulting?"). The Tau revenue breakdown answers BOTH.
• Services-first is gaining investor acceptance. Wavemaker (2/19): "I'd rather have an honest presentation of what revenue is... services can be more sticky than fake ARR." This is the first investor to explicitly prefer honest services revenue over dressed-up SaaS. May be an emerging shift.
• Revenue model is now articulated: SaaS fee 5-10% + implementation fee (rate card, Palantir discount) + maintenance/licensing ~50-60% of contract. Standardize on this.
• Written positioning (deck/blurb) lags behind verbal pitch quality — the blurb triggers "wrapper" fear. Fix urgently.
• Investors who understand the problem space from their own portfolio (Sorensen: SNF, Refract: Charter Health) are the fastest to convert. Target investors with adjacent portfolio companies.
• Market timing is universally validated — no investor has pushed back on "why now"
• Team quality is universally accepted — no investor has expressed concern about founders
• Deborah's "hypotheses to test" framing is useful for seed-stage positioning