Startup Pitch Teardown

Excellent. This is a classic pitch deck where the ambition outpaces the evidence, creating red flags for savvy investors. Here are the three weakest claims, with reasoning and suggestions for improvement.

---

1. The "Consumer-Grade" vs. "FDA Clearance" Contradiction

The Claim: The solution is a "non-invasive, consumer-grade brain-computer interface for everyday communication" (Slide 2), yet the primary use of funds is "FDA clearance (40%)" (Slide 7).

Why It's Weak: This is the most critical weakness because it signals a fundamental strategic confusion. A "consumer-grade" product implies a path to market similar to smartphones or wearables: fast, focused on user experience, and navigating low-barrier regulations like FCC or CE certifications. "FDA clearance," on the other hand, is a multi-year, extraordinarily expensive process for a medical device. It requires rigorous clinical trials, proves safety and efficacy, and subjects the company to intense regulatory oversight. A product under FDA review cannot be marketed as a general wellness or "everyday communication" tool. An investor sees this and thinks, "Does this team know what business they're in? Are they a high-growth tech startup or a slow, capital-intensive medical device company?" The two are mutually exclusive strategies with different timelines, risk profiles, and exit opportunities.

How to Strengthen It: The company must choose a lane and align the entire pitch around it.

• Improvement (Consumer Path): If they believe the core tech is safe and effective enough for consumers, they must remove "FDA clearance" from their use of funds. They should replace it with a focus on regulatory compliance and safety certification. For example: "Funds will be used for: R&D (45%), Go-to-Market (30%), and Global Safety & Compliance Certifications (25%) (e.g., FCC, CE, UL)." This aligns their funding ask with their "consumer-grade" positioning.
• Improvement (Medical Path): If they genuinely believe the technology's first and best use case is medical, they must reframe the entire deck. The problem becomes "restoring communication to patients with locked-in syndrome or ALS." The market shifts from "smartphone users" to the "assistive technology market." The team's neuroscience PhD becomes even more critical. This is a different, more capital-intensive pitch, but it's a coherent and credible one.

---

2. The "94% Accuracy" Claim

The Claim: "Our proprietary EEG headband uses advanced ML to decode neural patterns into text with 94% accuracy" (Slide 3).

Why It's Weak: This specific number is presented without any context, making it meaningless and highly suspect. In the world of BCI and machine learning, accuracy is entirely dependent on the conditions. An investor would immediately ask:

• Accuracy of what? Is it 94% accuracy for predicting the next letter? The next word? Or for choosing between two options (e.g., "yes" or "no")? Predicting the next letter with 94% accuracy is revolutionary; predicting a binary choice is far less impressive.
• Under what conditions? Was this achieved in a soundproof lab with a subject concentrating for 30 minutes? Or was it achieved with a user walking down a busy street? Real-world performance is always significantly lower than lab performance.
• What is the vocabulary size? 94% accuracy on a 10-word vocabulary is trivial. 94% on a 10,000-word vocabulary is the stuff of Nobel Prizes.
• What is the speed/latency? If it takes 10 seconds to achieve that accuracy for one word, it's not a viable replacement for typing.

Without this context, the "94%" number sounds like marketing hype, not a defensible technical metric.

How to Strengthen It: Provide the necessary context to make the claim credible and impressive.

• Improvement (Add Specificity): Reframe the claim with specifics. For example: "In our beta trials, we achieved 85% word-level accuracy on a 500-word vocabulary, with an average 2-second delay per word, in a typical home-office environment."
• Improvement (Show a Benchmark): Compare the result to a known baseline. "Our model achieves a 3x improvement in word-error-rate over the current state-of-the-art non-invasive academic models published by Carnegie Mellon last year." This demonstrates an understanding of the competitive landscape and validates their number.
• Improvement (Visual Proof): Nothing beats a demo. A video showing a user typing a sentence in real-time, with the text appearing as they think, would be more powerful than any number on a slide.

---

3. The "$180B TAM" Calculation

The Claim: "We're targeting the 3.5 billion smartphone users worldwide. TAM: $180B" (Slide 4).

Why It's Weak: This is a classic example of a "top-down" market sizing fallacy. The logic appears to be: (Number of Smartphone Users) x (Some large, unjustified number) = Huge Market. To get to a $180B TAM from 3.5B users, you need an average revenue per user (ARPU) of over $50. This is highly unrealistic for a new hardware and software category, especially in the early years. For comparison, Netflix's global ARPU is around $11-12. Apple's services ARPU is even lower. It implies that every single one of those 3.5 billion users, from farmers in India to students in Brazil, will not only buy their specialized hardware but also spend a significant amount on it annually. This leap in logic shows a lack of analytical rigor and suggests the founders haven't thought through a realistic go-to-market strategy.

How to Strengthen It: Use a more credible, bottom-up market sizing approach that demonstrates a clear, phased strategy.

• Improvement (Use the TAM-SAM-SOM Model):
  • TAM (Total Addressable Market): Stick with the credible, third-party figure. "The global Brain-Computer Interface market is projected to reach $5.3B by 2030 (Grand View Research)."
  • SAM (Serviceable Addressable Market): Narrow it down. "We are focused on the non-invasive consumer BCI segment, which we estimate represents $1.5B of that market."
  • SOM (Serviceable Obtainable Market): This is the most important number. Define a realistic beachhead market. "Our initial 5-year goal is to capture the high-end productivity and prosumer market in North America and Western Europe—approximately 10M users. With a target ARPU of $200/year (headband + premium software), this represents a $2B revenue opportunity."
• Improvement (Focus on a Beachhead Persona): Instead of "all smartphone users," focus on a specific, high-value user segment. "Our first target is the 50 million remote knowledge workers in the US who spend over 4 hours a day writing and communicating. For them, time is money, and our tool offers a clear productivity advantage." This makes the market feel real, accessible, and strategically targeted.