Startup Pitch Teardown

Excellent pitch deck summary — it’s concise and hits key points, but several claims stretch credibility and would raise red flags for experienced investors.

Here are the three weakest claims, with reasoning and suggested improvements:

---

1. Claim: “94% accuracy” (Slide 3)

Why it’s weak:

• Lack of context: “Accuracy” in brain-to-text systems is meaningless without specifying the task (open vocabulary vs. limited command set), latency, or user training required.
• State-of-the-art comparison: Current non-invasive EEG-based decoding for full language is nowhere near 94% for open-ended text; even invasive BCIs in research settings (e.g., Stanford’s intracortical array) achieve high accuracy but with constrained vocabularies. 94% for a consumer headband would be a massive breakthrough — but without a published paper or independent validation, it seems exaggerated.
• Overly broad claim: “Works with any language, any device” paired with 94% accuracy makes it even less believable.

How to strengthen:

• Specify the conditions: “94% accuracy for a 1000-word vocabulary after user calibration” or “94% character-level accuracy in a constrained sentence completion task.”
• Reference research: Mention it’s based on a novel architecture published at NeurIPS/CVPR, or cite a validation study from a university lab.
• Use more credible phrasing: “Our pilot data shows 94% accuracy in predicting intended words from a pre-defined set during real-time use” or “We’ve achieved up to 94% accuracy in lab settings for command prediction.”

---

2. Claim: “Partnership discussions with Apple and Samsung” (Slide 5)

Why it’s weak:

• Vague and non-committal: Every early-stage startup claims “discussions” with tech giants — it signals nothing concrete and can sound like name-dropping without evidence.
• If true, premature to share: If they are in serious talks, mentioning it publicly could violate confidentiality or annoy potential partners.
• Investor skepticism: Experienced VCs will ask, “At what level? With which division? Under NDA? With a mutual action plan?” Without follow-up details, it weakens credibility.

How to strengthen:

• Replace with a tangible partnership milestone: “In partnership with [specific smaller but credible company] to integrate into their productivity suite” or “Selected for Samsung’s C-Lab outside collaboration program.”
• If discussions are real but early: Simply state, “In early exploratory talks with major device manufacturers,” and be prepared with details in due diligence.
• Better yet: Replace with a signed pilot with a recognizable enterprise (even if not Apple/Samsung) — e.g., “Pilot agreement with Salesforce for accessibility use case.”

---

3. Claim: “TAM: $180B” (Slide 4)

Why it’s weak:

• Unrealistic for near-term: The BCI market is projected at $5.3B by 2030, so claiming a $180B TAM suggests they’re redefining the market in a way that seems disconnected from the cited report.
• Probably includes irrelevant market segments: Likely derived from “all smartphone users × premium price,” ignoring adoption curves, willingness to pay, and substitution by other input methods.
• Shows lack of bottom-up modeling: Investors prefer a credible SAM (serviceable addressable market) based on early adopters, not a theoretical TAM.

How to strengthen:

• Break down TAM more credibly: Start with early adopters (e.g., assistive tech for motor-impaired individuals, then prosumers/creatives) — show a realistic 5-year SAM.
• Connect to existing markets: “Our initial $2B SAM is the global assistive communication device market, expanding to the $50B+ wearables market as we reduce cost.”
• Use the top-down number cautiously: If keeping $180B, explain: “If we capture 5% of the global wearable and peripheral market by 2030, that represents a $9B opportunity — our $180B TAM reflects all potential keyboard replacement scenarios long-term.”

---

Bonus weak point (if a fourth is needed):

“Predict what you want to type before you think it” (Slide 1) — sounds like sci-fi hyperbole; better to say “as you think it” or “from neural signals before motor action.”

By tightening these claims, the pitch becomes more credible while still ambitious.