Published by Stackpoint Ventures. Updated 3/2026.
<aside> 💡
About Stackpoint
Stackpoint is a venture studio that conceives, funds, and builds AI companies in complex, high-barrier industries such as real estate, insurance, construction, finance and hospitality. We identify opportunities through proprietary research, real-world experimentation, and deep collaboration with industry partners — then build them with a hands-on, cross-functional team, dedicated capital, and a network of top-tier talent and leading venture firms.
To date, Stackpoint has raised over $100M, created more than $400M in combined equity value, graduates companies from Pre-Seed to Seed/Series A at roughly 2x the rate of VC peers, and consistently ranks in the top 5% of VCs from its vintage.
Our founders, ***Adam Pase*** and Chris Kelly, are proptech industry pioneers who navigated multiple businesses from conception through scale to create over $2B of combined equity value.
</aside>
How to Use This Scorecard
This tool is not a checklist to satisfy — it is a structured way to surface the risks that matter most and to assess whether your team has a discernible advantage and a credible "right to win" given those risks. A high total score is not the output you're after. What you want is clarity: which risks are real, which are manageable, and where your team's position or insight gives you an edge that a generic team would not have. Use this to build an honest risk map and to stress-test conviction — not to generate a green-light memo.
The DFV framework — popularized by IDEO and widely used in design thinking — asks three high-level questions: Is it desirable? Is it feasible? Is it viable? That structure is excellent for early divergent exploration across many possible solutions, where the goal is to eliminate clearly bad directions quickly and open up creative space.
This scorecard is built for a different moment — for a deeper evaluation. Use it when you have already narrowed to a specific problem space and are trying to assess a candidate wedge — a concrete, scoped value loop — before committing to build. Where DFV asks broad directional questions, this tool asks precise strategic ones: How urgent is the pain, specifically? How much behavior change does adoption require? Does this wedge expand into a defensible product vision?
At Stackpoint, we use this same scorecard at both the long-term product vision level and the immediate GTM wedge level with a level of adaption — but looking at it through different lenses. At the vision level, the Strategy section carries more weight: you need to believe the problem space is large enough and defensible enough to build a company around. At the wedge level, Problem, Value, and Adoption are your primary lens: does this specific slice deliver complete, measurable value fast enough to earn a design partner and prove the model? The wedge must be a credible entry point that could plausibly expand into the vision — not a detour away from it. Score the full scorecard, but weight your interpretation accordingly.
Not all criteria carry equal weight. In practice, two dimensions are non-negotiable anchors — and the others inform the shape of your approach rather than the go/no-go decision itself. Here is how to sequence your attention:
| Tier | Categories | What low scores mean |
|---|---|---|
| 🔴 1 — Non-negotiable Anchor here first | Problem + Value | Reconsider the use case entirely. A weak problem or unclear value creation cannot be mitigated by strong feasibility or a clever GTM motion. |
| 🟡 2 — Shape the approach Solve, don't block | Feasibility + Adoption | Identifies what needs to be de-risked or designed around. Low scores here change how you build, not whether you build. |
| 🔵 3 — Refine the strategy Important, not urgent | Strategy | Shapes long-term defensibility and expansion path. Critical for conviction at the vision level; less decisive for wedge commitment. |
| Score | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| 5 | High confidence — strong signal, validated or clearly observable |
| 4 | Good signal — minor gaps, manageable with current plan |
| 3 | Acceptable — requires monitoring and active mitigation |
| 2 | Significant gap — needs a concrete mitigation plan before proceeding |
| 1 | Major concern — rethink this aspect of the wedge before committing |
⚠️ Flag any MUST-HAVE criterion scored 1–2 as a blocking risk to resolve before committing to the wedge.
A low score in Problem or Value → reconsider the use case. A low score in Feasibility or Adoption → adjust the approach. A low score in Strategy → refine the product roadmap or GTM motion.
Anchor here first. If you cannot score 4+ on Pain Severity and Stakeholder Urgency, stop and reassess before continuing.