Public data · Updated monthly
What PRISM actually says — the verdict distribution.
Every verdict PRISM issues is logged. Once a month, we publish the aggregate breakdown: how many GO, KILL, PIVOT, CGO, DEFER verdicts — and the lenses that triggered each outcome. No names. No company details. Just the data.
Verdict breakdown
June 2026 — 22 verdicts
Aggregate counts across all PRISM tiers (Pulse, Pro, Ultra) for the reporting month.
Idea has a fatal flaw that cannot be pivoted around. Market doesn’t exist, unit economics are irreparably negative, or competition has already won.
Core insight is valid but execution path fails one or more lenses. A significant change to ICP, channel, or business model is required before proceeding.
Idea is sound but market conditions, regulation, or timing make launch premature. Specific triggers defined for when to reassess.
Proceed only after resolving named conditions. Conditions are specific, measurable, and time-bound — not aspirational.
All 12 lenses pass. Market validated. Unit economics viable. Distribution path identifiable. Team execution fit confirmed. Proceed.
Sector breakdown
Ideas submitted by category
Sector distribution of submitted briefs in the reporting month. No winner/loser skew applied — all submitted sectors included.
Why we publish this
Accountability is not a marketing claim
No-spin commitment
Publishing verdict counts is the simplest possible check on ourselves. If 95% of verdicts were GO, you’d know we were telling founders what they wanted to hear. The actual distribution — dominated by KILL — tells you the methodology is working as designed. We don’t adjust the data to look more encouraging.
Transparency over reputation management
Every company in this space has an incentive to hide its error rate. We choose the opposite. Failure lenses are published because founders considering PRISM deserve to know what the methodology surfaces — not just that we exist. If we get a verdict wrong, we issue a correction on the errata page and update this data accordingly.
Errata policy and correction log
If a published verdict contained a factual error — a miscited source, a miscalculated score, a misidentified competitor — we correct it publicly and note the correction here. The correction log lives on the errata page. The analyst accountable for every verdict is named on the analyst page. There is no anonymous sign-off at ThriveFinity.