Product Credibility
Is AI genuinely core to the product, or decorative? Do customer outcomes match the claims?
The Framework
Evidence over claims. Structure over vibes.
Most company evaluations lean on demos, founder charisma, and scattered documentation. The result is inconsistent calls and expensive surprises. Kaptrix replaces that with a structured, repeatable framework that separates what is proven from what is claimed, and turns the gap between the two into the central object of the read.
Six dimensions we evaluate
Is AI genuinely core to the product, or decorative? Do customer outcomes match the claims?
How concentrated is the stack, and how costly is substitution if a vendor changes terms?
Does data sensitivity match the tooling, and are regulated categories handled correctly?
When the system behaves badly, is it observable, controllable, and accountable?
Will it hold under real load, real incidents, and real inference economics?
What remains unverified, where is technical debt hiding, and which unknowns still matter?
How we think about scoring
Evidence, not adjectives
Every score is tied to an artifact. If it cannot be cited, it cannot be scored.
Missing information is a finding
Unknowns are surfaced, not imputed. A dense gap register is itself a signal.
Non-compensatory by design
Strength in one dimension cannot paper over a failure in another. Guardrails catch what an average would hide.
Lifecycle-aware recommendations
Diligencing a deal, monitoring a live engagement, and reviewing a portfolio company are different questions with different answers.
Two reviewers, then calibration
Every evaluation is dual-scored. Where reviewers disagree, the reasoning is the deliverable.
What Kaptrix delivers
Dimensional scores, an evidence gap register, red-flag surfacing, and a clear recommendation you can take into committee.
Built for
Under NDA
The full scoring methodology — including sub-criteria and decision thresholds — is available under NDA.