View contents
Article
OpenSeed Product Guide

Your OpenSeed Round 1 Report — Which Feedback to Fix First

2026.05.28·8 min·OPENSEED
MENTORING KNOWLEDGE FORChief Analyst

After your OpenSeed Round 1 analysis, you'll typically end up with 50 to 80 comments. Try to address every one from top to bottom, and you may end up weakening your business plan. This article is a priority guide for founders who just received their Round 1 report — which comments to tackle first, and which ones you may want to ignore.

Intro.

#The First 5 Minutes — Read the Verdict Before the Overall Score

When your report opens, a large star rating appears at the top of the screen. But a star rating is a number without context. Whether '85 points' is a passing or failing score depends entirely on the type of business plan. What you should look at first is the one-line verdict.

VerdictMeaningNext Action
High chance of passingCurrently within the passing range as-isJust polish minor sentences
Needs revisionWithin reach if you fix 1–3 weaknessesFix the red flags first → move to Round 2
At risk of rejectionStructural weakness, needs substantial reinforcementCheck whether it's the Problem area, market viability, or team
Insufficient evidenceBody text is too short (under 1,500 characters)Expand the body text → run Round 1 again

The most common mistake is seeing a verdict of 'at risk of rejection' but glancing at the star rating and thinking, 'It's 80 points, so it's fine.' The rating formula weights categories differently, so the overall average can be high even while a specific axis falls below the cutoff.

02

#Second — Start with the Red Flags Section

The next thing to look at after the verdict is the 'Red Flags' section. This is where structural weaknesses that repeat across multiple mentors' comments get collected. A comment that only one mentor raised might just be a personal opinion, but something that surfaces as a red flag already has more evidence behind it than that.

Read the red flags in descending order of severity. In an OpenSeed report, each red flag is tagged with a severity level and an expected point impact (expectedPoints) — start with whichever has the biggest value.

  • critical — fix immediately; this is a weakness that shakes the passing bar itself
  • high — fixing is strongly recommended; a weakness with a large point impact
  • medium — address alongside expanding the body text
  • Items mentioned in the body but missing evidence or figures — check individual mentors' comments and prioritize based on your own judgment
03

#The 3 Revision Patterns With the Highest Score Gains

Based on analysis data, these are the three revision patterns that produce the largest score gains from Round 1 to Round 2.

Revision PatternExpected Score ChangeWhy
Add evidence for market size (TAM/SAM/SOM)+5 to +8 pointsMissing quantitative data and sources is the most common reason points get docked
Connect the founder's background to the problem+3 to +6 pointsWeak Founder-Problem Fit → strengthened with one added paragraph
Attach MVP or validation data (real interview counts, MoM graphs)+4 to +7 pointsPoints get docked on commercial viability when all you have is abstract intent

On the flip side, some revisions barely move the score. Polishing the design, changing fonts, adding a cover page, or piling on more abstract vision statements — none of these register as signal to the AI review. You'll likely just add length without moving the score.

04

#Comments You Can Deliberately Ignore — Don't Chase All of Them

Some of the relevant review roles apply the same tone consistently for the sake of consistency, but that tone might not fit your specific business. In the following cases, deliberately ignoring the comment produces a better outcome.

  • A SaaS-focused Tier 1 mentor flags 'insufficient ARR/MRR data' on a B2C fintech business — ignore it if your stage genuinely can't have ARR yet
  • A government-grant specialist mentor flags 'weak P/S scoring' on a business plan meant for a seed IR — ignore it if you're not using a government-grant template
  • An impact-VC avatar flags 'insufficient social value' on a standard B2B SaaS business — ignore it if impact investors aren't your target
  • A minor wording correction flagged by only one reviewer — check whether the other applicable reviewers raised the same concern before deciding whether to change it

Because the review examines different domains separately, some comments may not fit your specific business. Chasing every note can leave you with 'a business plan written for the AI,' obscuring what matters about your business.

05

#Category Ratings — Deciding Which Axis to Fix First

After addressing the red flags, look at the category-by-category ratings. OpenSeed typically shows 7–10 evaluation axes (market viability, technical merit, team, finances, execution, differentiation, risk, etc.). Because the weights differ, the efficient move is to fix whichever axis has the largest 'weight × weakness' product — not simply the weakest axis.

Business TypeTop Weighted PrioritySecond Weighted PriorityCommonly Weak Axis
Pre-Startup PackageP area (problem definition)S area (solution)T area (team) is frequently weak
Seed IRTeam (50%)Pain (25%)Lack of quantitative market data
Series A IRARR/MRR growth rateUnit economicsMissing churn/retention data
TIPSTechnical differentiationOperator matchingCommercial viability
Impact investmentQuantified social valueBM sustainabilitySROI calculation
06

#Sentence-Level Rewrites — Save These for Last

OpenSeed's report attaches concrete revision suggestions to weak sentences in your body text. But this is best saved for last. If you polish sentences before fixing structural weaknesses (market, team, finances), you'll likely end up needing another round of major revisions anyway.

Apply sentence-level rewrites in this order:

  • 1. Fix Tier 1–2 red flags (major revisions)
  • 2. Strengthen the highest-weighted axis from your category ratings
  • 3. Run Round 2 analysis and check the new verdict
  • 4. Once the new verdict becomes 'high chance of passing' → that's when you do sentence-level rewrites
  • 5. Review once more right before final submission
Summary.

#Checklist Before Running Round 2

Round 2 analysis also requires a fresh request, so use it efficiently. Only move to Round 2 once you satisfy all 5 of the following:

  • Every Tier 1 red flag (agreed on by 10+ mentors) has been addressed in the body text
  • You've strengthened at least one paragraph on the top-weighted axis
  • If your body text was under 1,500 characters, you've expanded it to 3,000+
  • You've added a paragraph on Founder-Problem Fit (founder background + how you discovered the problem)
  • You have at least one piece of MVP or validation data (interview count, beta users, or a MoM graph — any of these)
CTA
OpenSeed applies consistent review criteria in Round 2, so you can compare the results with Round 1. Addressing red flags may improve your score, but the size of the change depends on the plan and review results.
Advertisement

From Your Round 1 Comments, Fix Only What Actually Raises Your Score

Start with the red flags multiple mentors flagged in common → strengthen the highest-weighted axis → resubmit for Round 2.

Pre-submission business-plan review with clear service limitations

Start OpenSeed Review →

관련 AI 피드백 서비스.

AI 피드백
사업계획서 AI 추천 →
AI 피드백
사업계획서 피드백 →
AI 피드백
IR 덱 피드백 →
RELATED · Related pagesOpenSeed Product Guide
K-Startup Application Form Auto-Fill Pipeline2026.10.15 · 6 minInvestor Sharing Consent — When the VC Avatar Path Activates2026.10.06 · 5 minUpload Your Business Plan PDF and Announcement PDF Together for an All-in-One Eligibility Check2026.09.24 · 3 minBusiness Plans for Regulated Industries — What Reviewers Look at Beyond the Basics2026.09.24 · 6 minThe 4-AI Disagreement Strip: How to Find Weak Sections and Set Revision Priorities2026.08.20 · 8 min
← Back to Wiki