Startup Pitch Teardown

Here are the 3 weakest claims in this pitch deck:

1. "94% accuracy" claim (Slide 3)

Why it's weak:

• No context provided for what constitutes "accuracy" (character-level? word-level? sentence-level?)
• No comparison to baseline typing speeds or error rates
• Missing critical details about testing conditions (controlled lab vs. real-world usage)
• Current state-of-the-art EEG-based BCIs typically achieve much lower accuracy rates for complex tasks like text prediction

How to strengthen:

• Provide specific accuracy metrics: "94% word-level accuracy in controlled 10-minute typing sessions"
• Include comparison data: "Reduces typing errors by 60% compared to standard smartphone keyboards"
• Add real-world performance data: "Maintains 78% accuracy in noisy environments"
• Show accuracy progression over time as the AI learns user patterns

2. "$180B TAM" calculation (Slide 4)

Why it's weak:

• Unrealistic assumption that all 3.5B smartphone users would pay premium prices for brain-computer interfaces
• No consideration of adoption barriers (cost, comfort, social acceptance, technical literacy)
• Missing price point assumptions that would justify this massive TAM
• Conflates total addressable market with serviceable addressable market

How to strengthen:

• Segment the market realistically: "Initial TAM of $2.1B targeting 35M early adopters willing to pay $300+ for productivity tools"
• Provide adoption timeline: "Expanding to $18B SAM as technology matures and prices decrease over 10 years"
• Include comparable adoption curves from similar technologies (VR headsets, smartwatches)
• Break down by use cases: enterprise productivity, accessibility needs, gaming, etc.

3. FDA clearance allocation (40% of $15M = $6M) (Slide 7)

Why it's weak:

• EEG headbands for productivity/communication typically don't require FDA clearance unless making medical claims
• If FDA approval is truly needed, $6M may be insufficient for the multi-year clinical trial process
• Suggests fundamental uncertainty about regulatory pathway
• May indicate the product has medical device implications not clearly explained in the pitch

How to strengthen:

• Clarify regulatory strategy: "Pursuing FDA 510(k) clearance to enable medical accessibility applications, budgeting $6M for clinical studies and regulatory consulting"
• Provide timeline: "FDA submission planned for Q3 2025, with clearance expected Q2 2026"
• Explain dual-track approach: "Launching consumer version (no FDA required) in 2024 while pursuing medical device clearance for expanded market access"
• Include regulatory consultant validation of budget and timeline assumptions

These improvements would make the pitch more credible by providing realistic projections, proper context for technical claims, and clear regulatory strategy.