F / 05 Capital Strategy Studio
A financing decision.
Made explicit.
Which plan fits your objectives,
and what would change your choice?
Compare capital, ownership and modeled allocations across the same explicit scenarios. Keep the judgment with the numbers.
Illustrative research · 18 Oct 2026 model
01 / Define the decision
Make the trade-offs visible.
Loading the submitted alternatives.
Chosen separately from the comparison rule.
Preparing the capital and ownership comparison…
Only submitted plans are plotted. Meeting your objectives does not establish that financing is available or that a plan is suitable for an actual company.
Optional / Explore the decisionTry the tradeoff.What changes when you ask for more capital or keep more ownership?
Four illustrative objective pairs. Each preview uses the plans and scenarios in your current decision. Choose a pair, inspect who qualifies, then apply it when ready.
Loading the current decision before previewing objectives.
Preview / Current submitted plans
Plans meeting both objectives
Apply updates the two objectives together. Your plan terms, scenarios and decision notes stay intact.
02 / Compare the alternatives
Different terms.
Explicit consequences.
Enter each quote independently from the operating model. Every plan uses the same company scenarios and hypothetical balances.
A primary round issues new shares; proceeds remain cash and operations stay fixed. Pre-money and post-money are alternative interpretations of the entered quote. Changing the basis keeps that entered number fixed.
Complete pricing and ownership comparison
| Plan | Pre-money quote | Primary capital | Post-money quote | Starting stake retained | Tracked holder after | Capital vs. objective | Both objectives |
|---|
03 / Challenge the preference
One decision.
More than one future.
Each row is a complete, declared operating case. Counts describe submitted scenarios; they are not probabilities.
Common hypothetical equity bridgeCash $20B · Debt $5B · Other claims $0B
Operating EV + cash − debt − other claims = modeled pre-round equity residual. Missing balances make allocation comparisons unavailable; an explicit zero is still a hypothetical input. Primary proceeds are added once, after this bridge.
The same plans, tested across every case.
Signed modeled residual allocated to the whole existing cohort after each round.
A declared comparison rule
Lowest worst-case gap
Preparing the comparison across eligible plans.
How this comparison rule works
For each scenario, the benchmark is the largest signed residual allocation among plans meeting both capital and retention objectives. A plan’s gap is that benchmark minus its allocation. The rule returns all plans with the smallest maximum gap across these submitted scenarios. This is minimax regret under the declared metric.
The rule does not change your selection, assign scenario probabilities, or establish investment performance. A missing required value makes the complete rule unavailable; an unfavorable scenario is never discarded.
Switching values
What would change the comparison?
The point at which two signed allocation lines cross. Only the modeled pre-round equity residual varies here.
Test a model-conditioned pricing intervalConnect the ownership limit to all scenarios
Can the two price conditions coexist?
The ownership floor places a lower bound on a plan’s pre-money quote. The submitted model scenarios and a coverage requirement place an upper bound. An empty interval makes the conflict visible.
For example, 1× requires each scenario’s modeled residual to be at least the quote.
This diagnostic is separate from plan eligibility. It is conditional on your model inputs, scenarios and coverage floor, and does not describe obtainable financing. Analytical limits and supported input limits remain distinct.
Complete scenario-by-plan calculation table
Calculation warnings and interpretation
Signed modeled equity residuals and their allocations are not limited-liability share valuations. Negative values remain signed. New primary cash is retained; fees, option-pool changes, convertible instruments, preferences, secondary sales and the effect of spending the capital on operations are outside this model.
04 / Record the judgment
Keep the reason.
Keep the exact decision.
Choose a plan deliberately. Explain its trade-off and identify what would make you revisit it. The decision record carries all inputs and reasoning.
Notes stay in this page until you explicitly export or share them. The calculation API receives the numeric snapshot without your analyst prose. This Studio does not silently save to a server or the Research Casebook.
Illustrative analyst draft.
A complete, reproducible record
Take the analysis with you.
JSON reopens the exact record. The standalone HTML brief can be read offline or printed to PDF.
A shared link includes the analyst text you entered. Larger valid decisions remain downloadable even when they exceed the link-size limit.
Calculated in this browser. Server verification is available.
How exact and rounding comparisons differ
Open a saved decision
The file is validated and previewed before it can replace your current draft.
Review the incoming decision
Nothing has changed yet. Applying this record replaces the current page’s draft. Stored result values are recomputed from the validated inputs.
The financial interpretation
A conditional comparison.
An inspectable method.
The same operating case is valued before every plan. A hypothetical bridge adds pre-round cash and subtracts debt and other claims. Each primary raise is then added once as retained cash. The existing cohort’s retained fraction allocates the resulting signed model residual.
Financing quotes are entered independently. The model does not estimate funding availability, investment returns, a company’s true capital need, or the operational benefit of deploying new proceeds. Finite continuation is a truncation assumption; later cash flows and residual value are zero after its cutoff.