Gutcheck builds an execution record from the tools a founder already uses, with their permission and without a survey. Six observable behaviors, one consistent method — and a record your institution can show its own funders.
Five steps, end to end, no black box. Here's exactly how one consented data connection becomes one auditable Execution Record.
The founder authorizes read-only access to the workspace they already use — Slack or Microsoft Teams, with their permission. No new survey, no manual entry, nothing extra to keep up with.
On a schedule, Gutcheck pulls structured events from each connected tool — timestamps, counts, and metadata. Never message content, never read what was said, only that something happened.
Every event stream is scored against the same six observable features — for every founder, on every connected app, the same way.
A founder who's active but erratic scores differently than one who's quiet but reliable, and the record shows exactly which is true, not just a single number that hides the difference.
| 01 | Volume | Any activity, at all |
| 02 | Consistency | Steady or bursty |
| 03 | Trend | Rising or fading |
| 04 | Recency | How fresh it is |
| 05 | Responsiveness | Speed of follow-through |
| 06 | Reliability | Commitments kept |
The six features combine into one Execution Score, scaled 0–1000 — the same formula, every founder, every institution, no manual weighting, no thumb on the scale.
If too few features were actually observable, the record doesn't ship — a low score is real signal, a missing one means we don't know yet. Every record that does ship carries a Confidence Grade (A–E): not a judgment on the founder, but on how much independently-observed evidence backs the number. More sources, over a longer window, earn a higher grade — thin evidence still gets a score, just labeled honestly.
The program that runs the cohort, the funder that pays for it, and the founder inside it are looking at the same record from three sides. Same numbers, same definitions, nothing to reconcile between them.
The tools a program already runs decide who gets in. None of them report what a founder did afterwards. Gutcheck reads operational telemetry from the tools a founder already uses, with their permission, and produces one record a program can carry into a funder conversation.
Accelerators · university programs · CDFIs · workforce boards
80% of funders require grantees to conduct evaluations. 38% of those fund none of it. What arrives instead is narrative, in formats that vary grant to grant — and the question a board asks, what changed across the portfolio, is the one the documents cannot answer.
Foundations · impact funds · philanthropic capital
You can see the record held about you, and you consented to it. It measures whether things happened, not what you said. Withdraw your permission and recording stops.
Visible to you · withdrawal stops recording
Résumés, pitch decks, and applications no longer reliably distinguish execution from narrative. Institutions face rising accountability and bias scrutiny with no defensible evaluation infrastructure to meet it.
If you run a bounded, cohort-based program — university, accelerator, corporate innovation program, fellowship, or workforce initiative — and need real evidence for how you evaluate the founders you serve, this is built for you.