For programmes
Hundreds of applications. One screening you can defend.
Most applications to a programme are rejected. The hard part is not explaining an acceptance but explaining a rejection — to the applicant, to the panel, sometimes to the funder. Premisey puts every idea through the same criteria, ties every claim to its source and leaves the reasoning behind the decision in writing.
Three fragile points in a screening process
Panel hours are expensive and uneven
Reading a hundred applications with equal attention is not possible. The first thirty and the last thirty are not held to the same standard — nobody does it deliberately, fatigue does it.
Results that shift by reviewer
The same idea receives two different scores from two different reviewers. When the process needs defending, there is no shared ground to stand on.
Claims in the application go unverified
The sentence “the market is $2 billion” stays exactly as it was written on the form. Nobody has time to verify it; and because it is unverified, the decision gets built on top of it.
Why Premisey fits this job
What follows is not a marketing promise but how the software works. All three come from the product's own rules and behave the same way in every report.
Same input, same score
Scores are not produced by the model; they are computed from closed-ended qualitative judgements through a deterministic formula. The same idea receives the same score no matter who runs it or when. That is the ground to stand on when the process is audited.
Every claim tied to a live source
After the research finishes, an actual request is made to every source address; a finding resting on a dead link is dropped from the report. How many sources were checked and how many were eliminated is written in the report.
No invented numbers
Every financial value carries one of three labels: Verified, Estimated, Unknown. Verified requires a source address. Without a source, no number is produced — it says “unknown”.
No evidence, no positive verdict
If the research did not bring back enough findings, the system cannot say “viable”; market and competition scores are capped. Refusing to produce a positive verdict without evidence in hand is not a limitation but a deliberate design.
Getting started
Let us run last cycle first
We are not asking you for a commitment. We take the applications from a cycle you have already decided, run them through Premisey, and you put the result next to your own decisions. Then we do not need to tell you whether the tool is useful.
Share the applications
A batch from a previous cycle whose decisions are already made. A small number is fine; it only has to be enough for a meaningful comparison.
We run it
We carry out the pilot run — there is no setup, account creation or training on your side.
Put them side by side
You get a sourced report and a score for each application. You see where it matches your own decision, where it diverges, and which source it relied on where it diverged.
The pilot is free and there is no obligation to continue afterwards.
What we say plainly
The most dangerous property of a screening tool is appearing to do something it cannot. What falls outside Premisey's scope:
- We do not decide. We prepare the ground for the decision, with sources; the panel makes the choice.
- We do not assess the team or the founder. The analysis looks at the idea itself and its market; it does not score the people in the application.
- Where no evidence can be found, we write “insufficient evidence”. That is not a failure but the output itself — and in a screening process it is often the most useful information there is.
- Today we work most effectively on digital product and software ideas. We are working on a separate research layer for physical products, manufacturing and industrial investment; we do not say “we can do this” before it is ready.
Pilot application
We keep it short. If it looks like a fit we will reply within the same week and tell you what we need.