Non-Dilutive Funding Stack Review

Critically test the quality, consistency and readiness of Non-Dilutive Funding Stack Review. The objective is to remove ambiguity around grants, R&D supports, tax credits and eligibility sequencing, 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 Non-Dilutive Funding Stack 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.

venture thesis; customer evidence; product roadmap; financial assumptions; current funding objective; existing artefact to review; specific context for grants, R&D supports, tax credits and eligibility sequencing.

1. 1Gather Non-Dilutive Funding Evidence and Artefactsexpand_more

   The founder compiles all existing grant applications, Innovate UK submissions, R&D tax credit estimates, and regional support documentation into a single reviewable workspace. They collate supporting materials including financial projections, project plans, subcontractor quotes, and technical eligibility assessments. This establishes a single source of truth for all non-dilutive capital claims.

   Objective

   Completing this action creates an audited repository of every non-dilutive opportunity currently pursued or planned by the venture. It ensures the parent task evaluates empirical documentation rather than vague intentions, preventing costly misalignments during actual application windows.

   What's expected

   The founder must deliver a central workspace containing current grant proposals, R&D tax relief claim calculations, state aid logs, and official correspondence. Every document must be indexed with verified submission deadlines and source funding criteria attached.

   Consultant stress-test · 5 questions

   1. 1.What primary evidence proves that these non-dilutive sources are currently active and available to your specific corporate structure?
   2. 2.How did you verify that the cost breakdowns provided in these draft grant applications match your underlying financial model?
   3. 3.Why have you included legacy or unconfirmed funding schemes without explicitly tagging their level of certainty?
   4. 4.Which key technical or commercial documents are still missing from this workspace that a grant assessor would demand immediately?
   5. 5.How does the version control across these application drafts guarantee that conflicting narrative claims are not being submitted simultaneously?

   Open action arrow_forward
2. 2Map Grants, Tax Relief, and Eligibility Sequencesexpand_more
3. 3Evaluate Funding Fit Against Venture Strategy Criteriaexpand_more
4. 4Stress-Test Funding Logic and Identify Material Risksexpand_more
5. 5Prioritise Structural Corrections and Funding Experimentsexpand_more
6. 6Formulate Progression Verdict and Update Data Roomexpand_more

• A data-room asset titled Non-Dilutive Funding Stack 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 grants, R&D supports, tax credits and eligibility sequencing, 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