An investment memo should help a committee understand why to invest, wait, or pass, and which evidence supports that position. Its value is not the amount of information it contains. The writing challenge is to make the reasoning clear enough to challenge.
Lead with the decision being made
State the proposed investment, vehicle, decision stage, and unresolved conditions. Approval to continue diligence is not approval to invest. Keeping those decisions separate prevents a positive screening recommendation from being mistaken for final conviction.
In the fictional Sillage case, pursuing diligence and postponing an investment are compatible. The first recognizes enough potential to investigate. The second finds that the available evidence does not yet support the proposed terms. A useful memo explains the different decisions rather than presenting the recommendations as an inconsistency.
Build a thesis instead of summarizing the deck
Sequoia’s business plan outline covers the problem, solution, market, competition, and business model. These topics provide a starting point for evaluating a company, but they do not themselves form an investment recommendation. Sequoia, Writing a Business Plan.
Our approach adds one question to each topic: how does this fact strengthen or weaken the proposed investment? A large market may be hard to reach. Rapid growth may depend on one customer. An experienced team may lack a critical role for the next stage. Connect each observation to its economic implications.
Distinguish different kinds of evidence
A founder statement, signed contract, and internal assumption do not carry the same evidentiary weight. For material findings, identify the source, date, and limits of what the document establishes. A contract records commitments under its terms; it does not automatically demonstrate usage, satisfaction, or payment.
Apply the same discipline to calculations. Keep inputs and assumptions alongside the result. Dividing cash by constant monthly burn is not equivalent to a monthly forecast that models hiring, collections, and financing. Both can be useful if their purpose and limitations remain explicit.
Make objections actionable
A generic risk list does little to improve a decision. For each material risk, describe the mechanism, exposure, and evidence needed. “Customer concentration” becomes “Atlas represents 20% of MRR; obtain the renewal criteria and test the financial effect of losing the account.”
Give unresolved issues an owner and a deadline. A partial answer can improve understanding without resolving the question. The committee should distinguish what is established, what is plausible, and what remains a condition. Team disagreements are more productive when they address that distinction rather than competing versions of the facts.
Specify what would justify reconsideration
A recommendation to wait is more useful when it explains what would bring the opportunity back to committee. Do not demand impossible certainty. Identify the evidence that would materially change the economics: a documented renewal, verifiable deployment costs, or a clarified financing structure.
Preserve the version actually reviewed, its sources, and the related opinions. Casian’s analyses feed the memo while the team retains its own judgment. The exported Sillage memo, in French, places saved analysis and a simulated human contribution in the same document. It illustrates a working format, not a customer outcome.