A few months ago, a founder came to me for help with his deck.

He was working on a novel therapeutic approach for glioblastoma. It was genuinely exciting science, real preclinical data, and a mechanism that could change how we think about treating one of the most devastating diagnoses in oncology.

He'd been pitching for months. There was polite interest, some good questions, but no one was moving forward.

So I took a look at the deck. It opened with three slides of pathway biology - receptor interactions, binding data, in vitro results.

By slide 5, I still didn't know how big the market was or what he was raising. The ask was buried on slide 18.

What he was presenting was something I observed so many times.

This was a science conference poster dressed up as a PowerPoint deck.

What it was not, was a business opportunity told in a way that would make investors take out their checkbooks.

So we restructured. We didn't change a single data point.

We moved the heavy mechanism slides to an appendix - still there if he was meeting with a scientifically sophisticated investor who wanted to go deep, but no longer the opening act for everyone else.

We led with the problem: what a GBM diagnosis actually means for a patient and their family today. Then the solution, framed around what his approach changes for that patient, and how it was different from the status quo.

Then the market, the team's specific connection to this space, and a clear ask with milestones.

I also coached him on reading the room. If the investor leans in during the science section, pull from the appendix and go deep. If they're nodding along, keep moving toward the business case.

This way, the same deck can allow for different conversations depending on who's across the table.

The next three investor meetings went differently. Two progressed to partner meetings. One moved into due diligence.

The science didn't change. The team didn't change.

But the story did.

That's what we're going to break down today.

Through my work, I've reviewed hundreds of pitch decks across biotech, devices, diagnostics, and health platforms.

Some raise oversubscribed rounds in a matter of months. Others are still making the rounds years later with the same slides.

The difference is rarely the science. It's almost always one of these five mistakes - and I want to make sure you're not making them.

Your deck opens with mechanism of action, pathway diagrams, and binding affinities. It reads like a conference poster, not an investment case.

Here's the thing: investors aren't evaluating your science first. They're evaluating whether there's a business worth funding.

The science is what gives them conviction after they're already interested. Unless they did their PhD in your specific niche (or most often, sub-niche), the science is not what hooks them in the first place.

Founders either hide the raise amount on the last slide, present it apologetically, or even worse, aren't clear about what the capital actually unlocks.

Investors want to know early: how much are you raising, what milestones does it get you to, and what does the company look like after you hit them?

If I have to hunt for this, you've already lost my attention.

Typically, this is a $50B TAM slide with a top-down calculation and no bottom-up logic.

Investors see right through this. They want to see that you know exactly who your first customers are, how you'll reach them, and what compels them to choose you over the status quo.

Without a beachhead, your market slide is an academic exercise, and your go-to-market strategy is wishful thinking.

You cannot build a compelling pitch without first defining your beachhead market - it shapes every slide that follows.

"PhD from MIT. 10 years at Pfizer. Published in Nature." That's a resume.

"Led the team that advanced [X] to Phase 2, now applying that exact development expertise to a novel approach in GBM" - that's a founding story.

Investors need to understand why YOUR team is uniquely positioned for THIS problem, not just that you're generally smart and experienced.

Contrary to popular belief, “there is a high unmet need" or “lack of current treatment” does not create urgency.

GBM, for instance, has been heartbreaking for decades.

Instead, investors want to know: what's changed - scientifically, clinically, or commercially - that makes this the right moment for your approach?

Is there new target validation data? A regulatory pathway that didn't exist 3 years ago? A failed competitor whose Phase 3 data actually proves your mechanism? Investors need a reason to act now, not just a reason to be interested eventually.

Every one of these mistakes comes from the same root cause: founders build decks in the order they think about their company, not the order investors evaluate opportunities.

Let’s take a look how investors actually think - and how you could build backwards from that to give your science the credit it deserves.

As founders, we obsess over slides. I've been guilty of this too - agonizing over fonts, colors and slide headers into the wee hours of the morning.

But take a step back and think about it from the other side of the table. What if you were the one investing?

From my own experience, I noticed that at a fundamental, gut level, I ultimately need a handful of questions answered before I take an opportunity seriously.

I also observed that those questions don’t typically change by sector - they are consistent whether I’m looking at a therapeutic, a medical device, health SaaS, you name it.

What’s more, they typically follow a sequence:

What unmet clinical need exists? What does the patient journey look like today? What’s broken in today’s world that needs fixing?

This is your opening. Not your science - the problem. What is the gap that you’re solving for?

If you're working in GBM, show me what a patient and their family face today: a median survival of 15 months, a standard of care that hasn't meaningfully changed in nearly two decades, and a disease where even "successful" treatment buys limited time.

If I’m not bought into the problem, and if I feel that instead this is a science that’s looking for a problem to solve, the other points are almost irrelevant.

How does your technology address this need? What's your value proposition? How does this improve on the current standard of care? What is the vision of the world that you’re working towards?

Now your science earns its place - but in service of the problem you just described, not as a standalone lecture.

The question isn't "how does your molecule work?" It's "how does your approach change the story you just told me about that patient?"

Keep the explanation at the level your audience can follow. You can always go deeper in the Q&A.

How large is the opportunity? Who are the customers and how will you reach them? What will compel them to choose your solution?

This is the beachhead question. This is not the massive TAM circle on your slide.

This is the specific, credible path to your first customers, your first revenue, your first proof that someone will pay for what you're building.

For a therapeutic, this might be your initial indication and patient population. For a device, it's your target clinical setting and reimbursement pathway. For a SaaS platform, it's your first 10 accounts and what they look like.

Why is this team uniquely positioned to execute on this vision?

Yes, credentials from top universities and brand-name employers are impressive. But put yourself in the shoes of an investor. What would be even more impressive?

An intimate understanding of the problem. Deep networks in the space you're building in. A founding story that makes this team feel inevitable for this company.

So for your teams slide, skip the alphabet soup of logos. Instead, answer: why do your specific backgrounds, relationships, and experiences give you an unfair advantage to win in this market?

What is it about your previous work, not just your resume, that makes you the right team for this specific problem?

What funding do you need and what milestones will it unlock?

This should be the most straightforward part of your deck. And yet, three out of four founders I meet haven't locked this in. The amount is vague, the milestones are generic, or the connection between capital and value creation is missing entirely.

To be clear: this is not a "use of funds" pie chart (although you should have that in the appendix).

This is a roadmap. "With $X, we get to [specific milestone], which positions us for [next inflection point]."

Remember - investors aren't donating to your research. They're buying a stake in a journey.

Show them exactly where that journey is going, how their dollars move it forward, and what each milestone means for the value of what they just bought into.

There's an unwritten sixth question that doesn't always get its own slide - but runs through every investor's mind from the moment you start talking: why now?

This is different from the problem being important. Every founder believes their problem is important.

The real question is: what has shifted in the world that creates a window of opportunity right now?

Think about what's different today than it was five years ago. Has a new biological insight unlocked a target that wasn't druggable before? Did a competitor's clinical failure reveal something about the biology that validates your approach? Has a regulatory framework evolved to create a faster path? Is there a reimbursement shift that finally makes the economics work?

The strongest decks don't save this for one slide. They weave it throughout - into the problem ("here's what's changed"), into the solution ("here's why this is now possible"), and into the market ("here's why the timing is right").

When investors feel a window closing, they stop deliberating and start taking action.

Most founders build their decks starting with Question 2 (their solution and science) and treat the other questions as afterthoughts.

The Investor Story Arc flips this.

Start with the problem. Earn the right to talk about your solution. Then prove there's a market worth pursuing, a team that can execute, and a clear plan for the capital.

Before you send your deck to a single investor, score it against the Investor Story Arc.

For each item below, mark ✅ (strong), ⚠️ (needs work), or ❌ (missing).

THE PROBLEM (Slides 1-2)

□ The unmet need is clear within 30 seconds

□ The problem is specific

□ A non-scientist can understand why this matters

□ There are no pathway diagrams before the problem is established

THE SOLUTION (Slides 3-4)

□ The explanation connects directly to the problem you just described

□ The mechanism is explained at an appropriate level (not a journal article)

□ Differentiation from existing approaches is clear

□ IP position is mentioned (even briefly)

THE MARKET (Slides 5-7)

□ The beachhead market is defined and specific

□ Market sizing includes a credible bottom-up analysis

□ There's a clear go-to-market path to your first customers

□ You've addressed what compels customers to switch from the status quo

THE TEAM (Slide 8-9)

□ Each team member's background connects to THIS specific opportunity

□ You've addressed key gaps honestly (with a plan to fill them)

□ Advisors and board members add credible, relevant expertise

THE ASK (Slide 10-12)

□ The raise amount is clear and prominent (not buried on the last slide)

□ Milestones are specific and tied to value inflection points

□ Use of funds maps directly to those milestones

□ There's a clear "what this gets us to" - the next financing or exit event

YOUR SCORE:

As a bonus, I'm including an AI mega-prompt trained on the Investor Story Arc methodology - so you can get direct, actionable feedback on your deck.

Paste your deck outline into the AI of your choice (e.g. ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini), pick your company type and target investor, and get a section-by-section breakdown of what's working, what's missing, and exactly what to fix.

It scores each of the 5 questions, flags the red flags investors will catch, suggests a restructured slide sequence, and identifies the one change that would have the biggest impact on your raise.

Think of it as a brutally honest advisor that's available at 2am 🙂

[Grab the prompt here]

Let me know if you try it, would love to hear how it goes!

Here's my challenge for you this week: pull up your deck and run through the 5-question self-assessment.

Score yourself honestly. If you're brave enough, hand it to someone outside your field and time them. You'll learn more in 15 minutes than from months of polishing slides in isolation.

Got questions? Stuck on something? Hit reply - I’d love to hear from you!

Hope this helps and see you next week!

- Vadim

PS: I just got an open slot in March for my 1:1 work with founders. If you're working through any of the below challenges, I'd love to help:

If any of these resonate, I'd love to hear from you.

[Get in touch here]

PPS: If you have someone on your team helping with fundraising or know another founder who could benefit from being in this community - I’d love to include them. They can join us here: [Join the Community]