Follow-On Support Trigger Review

Critically test the quality, consistency and readiness of Follow-On Support Trigger Review. The objective is to remove ambiguity around post-programme gaps, next support, mentors and investor layer triggers, give the founder a decision-ready output, and make it clear whether the venture should progress, repeat the task with stronger evidence, escalate to expert support, or move into a linked stage.

Bertie or a programme manager assigns Follow-On Support Trigger Review when the venture needs a decision-ready output for this group. Typical triggers include group-gate reviews, evidence gaps identified by the co-pilot or founder request.

programme history; latest venture status; milestone record; alumni/portfolio data; follow-on support options; existing artefact to review; specific context for post-programme gaps, next support, mentors and investor layer triggers.

1. 1Gather Baseline Support Data and Post-Programme Triggersexpand_more

   The founder compiles all existing documentation regarding post-programme performance, current support structures, and active trigger metrics. This includes compiling current runway estimates, founder capability logs, mentor session notes, and existing investor update frameworks into a single review location.

   Objective

   Completing this action aggregates all fragmented operational and governance inputs into a unified reviewable data set. It establishes a transparent baseline that prevents selective memory when evaluating whether existing follow-on support mechanisms are actually functioning.

   What's expected

   The founder must present an audited inventory of current support assets, active investor contact logs, and explicit trigger rules currently documented in the venture data room. This documentation must explicitly list historical intervention points alongside current operational metrics.

   Consultant stress-test · 5 questions

   1. 1.What primary data sources did you rely on to verify that these support triggers are currently active rather than theoretical?
   2. 2.How have you ensured that the assembled record reflects objective operational health rather than optimistic founder narrative?
   3. 3.Where are the documentation gaps between your operational reality and the formal updates provided to existing mentors?
   4. 4.Why did you select these specific operational metrics as the primary indicators for support intervention?
   5. 5.How does this assembled evidence base compare with the performance thresholds agreed at the end of the core programme?

   Open action arrow_forward
2. 2Map Post-Programme Gaps and Investor Layer Triggersexpand_more
3. 3Stress-Test Support Triggers Against Venture DNAexpand_more
4. 4Expose Systemic Contradictions and Evidence Deficitsexpand_more
5. 5Rank Corrective Actions and Validation Experimentsexpand_more
6. 6Formalise Governance Decision and Update Venture DNAexpand_more

• A data-room asset titled Follow-On Support Trigger Review
• A review note with a verdict, evidence gaps, risks, recommended corrections and a clear continue / repeat / escalate decision
• It should update the venture DNA with specific evidence or decisions about post-programme gaps, next support, mentors and investor layer triggers, create a visible milestone in the founder journey, and generate one or more recommended next tasks

A mentor or evaluator can review the output at the group gate. Programme managers can require an advisor checkpoint before Bertie moves the venture forward.

Draft your output and let Bertie review it