Board meetings and monthly updates already contain everything a portfolio review needs. meetapp.ai reads them, scores every company against the six dimensions that matter at its stage, and chases whatever's missing — without asking a founder to fill in another template.
It scores the company, never the founder. Runway stated or not stated. Board actions closed or carried. Facts a partner can act on.
A board meeting is a single conversation that has to serve two portfolios at once. The founder is running a company; the investor is running a fund. Same session, same evidence — scored into two different books, at two different scopes, with a boundary down the middle that neither side has to police by hand.
One company, broken into the work streams that run it — scored on the same evidence.
One session. Digested once, and only what was approved crosses the line.
The same company as one row of a portfolio, grouped by funding stage — and the fund's own rooms alongside it.
“The meeting went great” carries no information, because it is what every founder says about every meeting. The same claim as evidence — who was in the room, what the customer actually said, what got committed — is something an investor can act on: ground reality instead of a progress report, and a reason to make the introduction that follows a real result. The handshake is worth opting into because value moves back across it.
It scores the company, never the founder. Runway stated or not stated. Board actions closed or carried. Roles the plan depends on filled or open for two quarters. Those are facts about a business, and a partner can act on every one of them. “How the founder came across” is not on the board, is not a dimension, and is not something this system is built to produce.
Two room types, not one room with two logins. An investor's row is a company; a founder's row is a work stream inside one of five domains. What the founder's rooms produce feeds the six dimensions a portfolio company is scored on — a mapping, not a mirror, which is why both sides are worth modelling.
See the founder's sideA company is sourced, diligenced and transacted long before anybody monitors it, and it leaves through an exit. Each of those is a room that persists — so the reference call taken during diligence is still there at the exit three years later, and the reason a prospect was passed on is still there when it comes back around.
Pipeline, referrals and screening decisions
What each workstream actually established
Terms, cap table, documentation and closing
Portfolio performance and board reporting
Readiness, buyers and valuation trajectory
The one room whose rows are the fund's own work rather than a company's: LP reporting, allocation and reserves, compliance, the investment strategy itself. Scored exactly the way a portfolio company is, because the obligations that sink a fund are the ones nobody notices are late.
Six configurations of one engine — same evidence rules, same coverage floor, same refusal to score what nobody has said.
A portfolio scored on one set of weights flatters the mature company and punishes the young one. Runway is what de-risks an Angel; board-grade governance is what de-risks a Series B. Same six dimensions, same engine — reweighted by where the company actually is, and asking only the questions that stage has earned.
Leads with Capital & Finance at 30%.
Every stage sums to 100. Nothing is switched off — a dimension that matters less here still counts, it just costs less when it's missing. Weights that drop to zero would hide a gap instead of pricing it.
The agenda is the coverage specification, so this list is exactly what the gap scanner is allowed to raise against a Angel company.
These aren't gaps here. A flat agenda would print “Never covered · Audited financials” against a company three months old and call it a finding — and false findings are how an honest coverage figure stops being believed.
The six dimensions, weighted for the stage. How the company is actually doing — and the only reading most tools attempt.
Coverage and freshness — how much of that reading is backed by evidence, and how old the evidence is. Kept separate on purpose: a confident score on thin, stale data is the most dangerous row on the board, and averaging the two together is exactly what hides it.
The mechanism is a weighting table per axis value, not anything venture-specific. The same layer takes industry-specific weightings — a fintech and an agritech at the same stage are not de-risked by the same six numbers.
Every business judges health differently. meetapp.ai is configured to the dimensions and weights you already argue about in your own reviews — then holds every portfolio company to them consistently, across the whole book.
These are not invented dashboard metrics. Clarity of ownership, participation, alignment and follow-through are long-established constructs in organisational research. What has always been missing is a way to measure them without asking people to fill in a survey about themselves — self-reported, months late, and answered the way people wish things were. Reading the conversation measures the behaviour instead.
Runway, burn against plan, and the funding path behind them.
Pipeline, acquisition cost and whether growth is repeatable yet.
Roadmap commitments against what actually shipped.
Retention, expansion and what customers do after they buy.
Board decisions taken, and whether they land between meetings.
Whether the company has the roles and processes to execute the plan it committed to.
Weights sum to 100. The overall score is the weighted sum of what's visible — no hidden adjustments, no black box. Change what you measure and the rooms start listening for it. This configuration reweights itself by funding stage, so each dimension shows the span it moves across — see the curve.
Your board isn't a portfolio unless you call it one. Here it's the funding stage — the thing Monday morning is actually organised around — and every portfolio company sits in one column of it: same rooms, same scores, triaged for whoever's accountable.
Filter the book, sort it worst-first, open a row, click a dimension through to the quote behind it, generate this week's digest. Every room here is the same engine reading a different conversation. Fictitious data, real engine.
Every portfolio company gets a room. Board meetings and monthly updates land in it, the score comes from what the company actually reported, and the portfolio board shows which companies are compounding and which have simply gone quiet.
Every dashboard tells you what it knows. This one works on what it doesn't. The gap scanner runs continuously across the whole book, and everything it finds has an owner and a route home.
The agenda called for it; the meeting didn't reach it.
Asked for, acknowledged, not delivered.
Last signal is older than this dimension tolerates.
A commitment with no name or no date against it.
As an item to Ask, Confirm or Bring — leading the meeting.
As a request with a reply scaffold; the reply closes it.
A chase with the original ask quoted back.
A request that goes unanswered for three weeks doesn't leave the score unchanged — it lowers confidence in it. Data quality erodes the longer you go without the next update, and that erosion belongs on the screen, not in someone's head.
The companies in trouble are the ones whose updates went quiet, and quiet reads as fine
Coverage across the book is whatever each founder chose to volunteer that month
Reporting upward is a monthly tax that produces nothing you can use yourself
The story at exit has to be reconstructed from inboxes two years after the fact