What the Judge Prep Sheet Shows Mentors

#Why the Sheet Exists: Mentors Need Context First

In a batch review, a single mentor may be responsible for dozens of plans. Reading each one end-to-end on review day to form fresh judgments is not realistic. What mentors need is preparation context — a clear answer to 'what should I look at first in this plan?'

The judge prep sheet starts from that problem. It distills the output of OpenSeed's AI reviewers down to the key points each mentor should confirm before the session. Mentors read the sheet before they enter the room.

#Three Layers of Information in the Sheet

The judge prep sheet is not a simple plan summary. It's designed to organize the judgment points a mentor needs to focus on during evaluation into three distinct layers.

#How Mentors Read the Sheet

Mentors receive the sheet before the review session. It gives them a preview of which sections are weak and which assumptions haven't been tested — before they re-read the full plan. In the session, questions go straight to those points.

Sections a mentor reads as strengths are the ones the sheet marks with clear evidence. Items like domain experience, customer interview data, or comparable market figures — when these can be confirmed at the sheet level, they don't attract concentrated questions. Items without evidence, on the other hand, catch a mentor's eye first.

#Reverse Use: Reading Your Own Plan Through the Sheet's Lens

There's one way founders can use this sheet in reverse: before submitting, ask yourself, 'If someone built this sheet from my plan, what would appear in the evidence gaps section?' What the sheet would flag as a weakness is likely to become a mentor's first question.

1. Check whether each major section of the plan (market, team, revenue model, execution timeline) has supporting data.
2. Flag any sentence that relies on 'generally known facts' rather than specific evidence.
3. Treat those flagged items as candidates for the sheet's 'evidence gaps' section and decide whether to address them.
4. Add supporting evidence to items likely to draw reviewer disagreement — competitor comparisons, technology differentiation claims, international expansion plans.
5. Set your own revision priority order and sequence the work to fit the time you have before the deadline.

You don't need to handle all five steps at once. If your submission window is short, just the first two — verifying data support and flagging weak sentences — is enough to identify where a mentor is most likely to focus questions. If you have more time, working through step four's competitor comparisons and differentiation claims is worthwhile.

#Why the Sheet and Your OpenSeed Report Point to the Same Weaknesses

The judge prep sheet is part of OpenSeed's institutional batch review feature. It points in the opposite direction from the report an individual founder receives when analyzing a plan through OpenSeed. The report tells the founder 'why to revise'; the sheet tells the mentor 'where to focus.'

But both directions point to the same weaknesses. Items at the top of the report's revision priority list are likely to appear in the sheet's evidence gaps section as well. In other words, if you've thoroughly applied the report's feedback to improve your plan, the sheet mentors receive changes too. Acting on the report is the same as pre-shaping what the sheet will say.