This is what a Sentinel Audit looks like
A real Audit report — company name and founder identity removed. The claims, the evidence, the verdict, the analyst signature: all intact. See exactly what you are buying before you decide.
How to read this table. Every claim from the submitted deck is listed verbatim. Each is classified as Verified (primary source found + cited), Failed (contradicted by sources or uncitable), or Unverifiable (no public primary source exists). The rebuttal shows what an adversarial investor or regulator would say.
| # Claim (verbatim) | Status | Evidence / Source | Rebuttal (ranked top) |
|---|---|---|---|
| C-01"The UK food delivery market reached £12.8bn in 2023, growing at 14% CAGR." | ✓ VERIFIED | Statista UK Food Delivery Market Report 2024 (n=4,200 consumer panel). Cited figure: £12.6bn 2023, CAGR 13.8% 2019–2023. Margin of rounding within acceptable range. Grade: A | CAGR uses 2019 base, which includes pre-COVID spike. Post-2021 CAGR is ~7%. Investors may expect the lower post-normalisation figure. |
| C-02"60% of independent restaurants say delivery is their primary growth channel." | ✗ FAILED | UKHospitality 2023 survey (n=312) reports 38% of independent restaurants cite online delivery as a primary growth lever — not 60%. No source produces the 60% figure. Grade: F | Severity: HIGH. This is a TAM-sizing input. Overstating restaurant demand by 58% materially inflates the addressable market. Replace with cited UKHospitality 38% or conduct primary research. |
| C-03"Our B2B clients see a 23% reduction in operational costs within 90 days." | ? UNVERIFIABLE | No third-party source exists. This is a proprietary internal claim. Without a methodology note, sample size, or independent verification, it cannot be graded. Grade: U | An investor will ask: "How many clients? How is 'operational costs' defined? Was there a control group?" Without answers, the claim reads as marketing copy. Add a methodology footnote or remove until you have ≥5 verified case studies. |
| C-04"Food waste costs the UK hospitality sector £3.2bn annually." | ✓ VERIFIED | WRAP UK Hospitality Food Waste Report 2022 (£3.2bn cited, methodology: physical waste audits n=186 sites + sector extrapolation). Direct match. Grade: A | The WRAP figure includes waste across all hospitality. Your product targets independent restaurants only (~18% of sector). The relevant sub-market figure is ~£576m — use that instead to avoid scope-creep criticism. |
| C-05"We have no direct competitors in the UK market." | ✗ FAILED | Three direct competitors identified: [Redacted — Company A], [Redacted — Company B], [Redacted — Company C], all operating in the same sector with overlapping feature sets. One raised £4.2m Seed in 2023. Grade: F | Severity: CRITICAL. A sophisticated investor will find these in 10 minutes. Claiming no competition signals either naivety or deception — both are disqualifying. Replace with a honest competitive positioning map. |
| C-06"The average UK restaurant spends 28–35% of revenue on food and labour combined." | ✓ VERIFIED | CGA Strategy UK Restaurant Cost Index Q3 2023. Food cost: 28–32% of revenue. Labour: further 28–35%. Note: the deck conflates the two — these are separate line items totalling 56–67%, not 28–35%. Grade: B (source valid, claim conflated) | The deck appears to quote only food cost but state it as "food and labour combined." This creates a 2× understatement of operational cost burden. Clarify or separate. |
| C-07"Our NPS score is 72, compared to an industry average of 41." | ? UNVERIFIABLE | NPS of 72 is an internal metric — not verifiable. Industry average of 41 traced to CustomerGauge B2B SaaS benchmarks (not hospitality software). Comparison is apples-to-oranges. Grade: U | Disclose sample size (n=?) and methodology. If n<30, state that. Use a hospitality-software benchmark, not generic B2B SaaS. |
| C-08"UK restaurant closures hit a 10-year high of 12,000 in 2023." | ✓ VERIFIED | AlixPartners UK Hospitality Outlook 2024 and Companies House dissolution data (11,800 restaurant closures registered 2023 — within rounding). Grade: A | Strong macro tailwind — use it. Pair with reopening rate to show net market growth vs contraction. |
| C-09"Our churn rate is below 2% annually, matching best-in-class SaaS benchmarks." | ✗ FAILED | Benchmark mis-cited. OpenView Partners SaaS Benchmarks 2023: median annual churn for SMB-focused SaaS is 8–12%; "best-in-class" is 3–5%. Sub-2% is enterprise-grade. Hospitality software carries structural closure-churn (restaurants close). Grade: F | Severity: HIGH. If the 2% claim is accurate, it is remarkable and should be defended with data, not compared to a wrong benchmark. If it includes customers who closed their restaurants (involuntary churn), it is misleading. Clarify or remove. |
Analyst verdict
The core product hypothesis is sound and macro tailwinds (closures, food waste costs) are well-evidenced. However, three claims — including a competitor-landscape denial and a market-sizing input — are directly falsifiable by an informed investor. These must be corrected before any investor conversation.
Required before next investor meeting: (1) Replace C-02 with the cited 38% UKHospitality figure. (2) Remove or defend C-05 with an honest competitive positioning map. (3) Add methodology notes to C-03 and C-07 or remove until supported by primary data. (4) Clarify the scope conflation in C-06.
What you just read is what you get
Ready to know which of your claims hold up?
Start with a free Teardown — one claim, one rebuttal, one edit. No card required. If you need the full audit, every claim in your deck, choose Audit £499.
30-day full refund · One-time · Nothing renews · Named analyst signs every report