Thesis Validation Matrix Template
For each thesis assumption, complete one row:
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Thesis Assumption | State the specific assumption being tested |
| Supporting Evidence | Quantified findings with sample size. E.g., “62% of 143 customers cite product quality as primary retention driver” |
| Disconfirming Evidence | Counter-signals with sample size. E.g., “38% cite contractual lock-in as primary driver” |
| Confidence Level | HIGH (strong signal, representative sample, consistent pattern) / MEDIUM (directionally clear, meaningful variance) / LOW (mixed signals or insufficient data) |
| Model Impact | Specific adjustment. E.g., “If lock-in-driven retention converts to product-driven churn at renewal, model churn at 12-15% vs. current 8%“ |
| Representative Verbatim | 2-3 customer quotes illustrating the pattern |
Common Thesis Assumptions to Test
- Retention is product-driven (not contractual/inertia)
- Pricing power supports planned increases (segment-specific)
- Competitive moat is defensible (vs. narrowing)
- Growth is organic (vs. GTM-spend-dependent)
- Customer concentration risk is manageable (top 10 accounts)
- Expansion revenue is realistic (customer intent vs. management projection)
Risk Register Template
For each risk surfaced through customer evidence:
- Risk description: One clear sentence
- Evidence base: Customer data with sample size and confidence
- Severity: Revenue/margin/multiple impact if risk materializes
- Mitigability: Can it be fixed post-close? (Product gap = fixable; market shift = structural)
- Timeline: Near-term (0-12 months), medium-term (1-3 years), long-term (3+ years)
- Verbatim: 2-3 representative customer quotes
Segment Analysis Template
Present findings by segments relevant to the deal model:
By ARR tier: Enterprise / Mid-market / SMB — each with NPS, retention intent, competitive consideration, pricing sensitivity
By tenure: Long-tenured / Mid-tenure / Recent — each with satisfaction trajectory and engagement trends
By engagement: Power users / Standard / Low-engagement — churn risk concentration
Customer Evidence Appendix
- Methodology (1 page): Sample design, independent recruitment, AI-moderated interview methodology
- Full statistics (5-10 pages): Every finding with sample sizes and confidence intervals
- Risk register detail: Extended verbatim evidence
- Intelligence Hub access: Links for committee members who want to review transcripts
For the complete guide on presenting CDD findings to investment committees, see Presenting CDD Findings to Investment Committee.