The Venture CodexAn investor shortlist should tell you who is relevant, why you believe they are relevant, and what happens next. Build it from research, separate confirmed facts from open questions, and organise the strongest candidates around the people and conversations needed to move forward.
This guide turns an investor research list into a working process. It references Aaron Harris's fundraising book; the evidence labels and shortlist template are editorial tools for applying its principles.
Define what a useful shortlist must support
Begin with the company and round brief from How to Find the Right Investors. Keep the intended use of capital, relevant markets, development stage and desired investment role visible while reviewing candidates.
For each firm, ask:
- Does its stated mandate include this kind of company?
- Is there evidence of relevant investing activity?
- Who is the most relevant person to approach?
- What would we need to confirm before spending a pitch meeting?
These questions keep a convenient introduction from becoming the sole reason a firm appears high on the list.
Label the evidence before assigning priority
Use three simple labels for material facts:
| Label | Meaning | Next step |
|---|---|---|
| Confirmed | You have a relevant, dated source | Keep the source beside the claim |
| Open | The information is incomplete or ambiguous | Name the question and who can answer it |
| Mismatch | The available evidence conflicts with a requirement of your raise | Set the firm aside unless new evidence resolves it |
For example, if you need a lead investor, a record of a firm participating in rounds leaves an open question about its willingness to lead yours. It is a reason to investigate, rather than an automatic rejection or confirmation.
Avoid giving unknown facts a positive score. A shortlist is more useful when uncertainty remains visible.
Prioritise conversations with a clear reason
For candidates that remain relevant, write one sentence explaining the case for a meeting. Include the partner, the connection to your business and the next thing you want to learn.
An illustrative entry might read: “The partner has invested in products bought by our target customer; confirm whether the firm considers new investments at our stage.” That is a research hypothesis. Keep it labelled that way until confirmed.
Harris's When to Raise makes investor understanding part of the fundraising decision. Use early conversations to test that understanding, rather than assuming every firm in the same sector evaluates an opportunity in the same way.
Some businesses need more explanation and time before an investor develops conviction. The discussion in Spikes and Explainers is useful context for deciding which relationships to develop ahead of a formal process.
Track the firm, partner and introduction separately
Keep one primary record per firm, with relevant partners and potential introducers attached to it. This helps you see whether several apparent opportunities are actually different routes into the same organisation.
Choose a primary introduction route when you have one, and coordinate with the people helping you before activating multiple requests.
Here is an illustrative introduction request to adapt:
“Would you be comfortable introducing us to [partner] at [firm]? We are building [product] for [customer]. Their work with [relevant company or topic] makes them someone we would like to meet. Our strongest current evidence is [verifiable fact]. I can send a short forwardable note if helpful.”
Every placeholder should become a statement you can support. The introducer should be free to decline.
Give every active entry an owner and next step
Use a compact working table:
| Firm / partner | Fit and source | Open question | Intro route | Status | Next action / owner / date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Add candidate | Record the reason and link | State what is unknown | Add a credible route | Researching | Assign the next task |
Download the shortlist template.
Record what happened, rather than how promising the interaction felt. “Asked for a technical discussion next week” is more actionable than “very interested.” “Waiting on an introduction” is different from “pitch scheduled.”
Harris distinguishes groundwork and expressions of interest from concrete financing progress in How Rounds Happen. Preserve those distinctions in your records.
Plan the active process around your capacity
Once you are ready to raise, decide which introductions and meetings you can handle well in the same period. Harris recommends coordinating meetings so investors can progress through the process alongside one another in The Speed Run.
Choose the size of an initial group based on your preparation and availability. There is no required list length in this worksheet. The practical test is whether you can explain each candidate's relevance, prepare for each conversation and follow up reliably.
Review the list regularly. Resolve open questions, update sources and remove entries that no longer fit. For organising the working process, explore the Venture Codex FRM.