CASE STUDY
How Daily99 Raised £100,000 After Fixing Three Slides
A Release Assurance report flagged three specific claims the founder couldn't defend in a room. She fixed them. The investor who had previously passed came back in.
THE SITUATION
The Deck Looked Fine — Until It Didn't
Shrrita Rao, founder of Daily99, had already closed a small round on her investment deck. The deck had been through internal review. A few people had seen it. She thought it was solid.
It wasn't. An investor meeting surfaced a headline claim on slide 4 that nobody in the room could source. Shrrita couldn't either. The meeting didn't go anywhere.
"I thought we were ready. We'd already closed a round on this deck. The Release Assurance report showed us we weren't."
— Shrrita Rao, Founder, Daily99
She submitted the deck to Release Assurance. The brief came back with three slides flagged — each with a specific, fixable problem. Not vague feedback. Not "this needs work." Three named issues with the exact slide numbers and the precise reason each claim wouldn't hold up in a room.
RELEASE ASSURANCE FINDINGS
Three Slides Flagged
Each flag came with the slide reference, the specific problem, and what would need to change. Not impressions — addressable issues.
Market Size Figure Citing a 2018 Report
LTV:CAC Ratio That didn’t Reconcile With the Unit Economics Slide
Competitive Moat Framed as Industry-wide When It Only Applied to One Segment
THE RELEASE ASSURANCE REPORT
What the Report Showed — And What Changed
Market size claim citing a 2018 industry report — data that predated the platform's actual target segment by several years
Replaced with a current scoped figure for the specific gamified commerce vertical, with a named 2025 source and the caveat that the 2018 number had been a total addressable figure, not an SAM
Market size · Source updated · Scope correctedLTV:CAC ratio of 4.2:1 on the metrics slide — but the cohort data on slide 14 implied a different number. An investor who did the maths would catch it immediately
Numbers reconciled across both slides. The real ratio was 3.1:1 once the correct CAC inputs were used — a solid number that didn't need inflating
Unit economics · Internal consistency fixed · Ratio recalculated"No competitor offers real-time gamification at this price point" — stated as if true across the whole market, not scoped to the India mid-market segment where it was actually accurate
Claim reframed with explicit scope: "In the India D2C mid-market" — more defensible and, in context, still a real and meaningful competitive advantage
Competitive positioning · Scope specified · Claim tightenedWHAT HAPPENED NEXT
What Happened After the Report
Deck Submitted for Release Assurance
Shrrita submitted the investment deck ahead of the next investor meeting. Three slides came back flagged within the Release Assurance turnaround window.
Three Slides Rebuilt
Market size sourced to a 2025 figure. LTV:CAC reconciled across both slides. Competitive claim scoped to the specific segment where it held.
&Pound;100,000 Investment Secured
Revised deck to the investor who had previously passed. They came back in. Daily99 closed £100,000. Shrrita describes it as the meeting where the deck finally held.
“We’d already closed a small round on this deck, so I thought it was fine. The Release Assurance report came back and it wasn’t harsh or vague — it was just specific. Three claims I thought were solid had either no primary source or were citing data from 2018. One of them was the headline number on the deck cover. We fixed everything, went back, and closed £100,000 from an investor who’d previously passed. I still think about how close we came to walking into that meeting with a deck we couldn’t defend.”
— Shrrita Rao, Founder, Daily99 · Release Assurance · May 2026
THE METHOD
How Release Assurance Worked on This Brief
Read
Full deck reviewed for investment-critical claims — market size, unit economics, competitive positioning. Each claim assessed against the standard an investor would apply.
Flag
Three slides identified where the claim either had no traceable source, created an internal inconsistency, or overstated the scope of the advantage being claimed.
Fix
Each flagged claim came with the specific rewrite needed: updated source, corrected calculation, or tightened scope. Actionable, not advisory.
Verify
Revised deck reviewed against the Release Assurance findings. All three changes confirmed — the numbers reconciled, the sources were current, and the claims held.
Attribution, stated honestly.
A report does not produce an outcome. A report, a founder who acts on it, and everything else happening at the time do. This is the chain for this case.
- Service delivered
- Deck claim verification, May 2026 — delivered before the service was renamed Release Assurance (comparable to today's Release Assurance Pack scope)
- Relationship
- Arm's-length client
- Period
- May 2026
- Starting state
- Investor deck with a dated market-size source, an LTV:CAC figure that differed between two slides, and an unscoped competitive claim
- What ThriveFinity did
- Three slides flagged with the specific rewrite, source or calculation required; the rest of the deck verified
- What the client did
- The founder rewrote the three slides and re-pitched
- Measured outcome
- £100,000 raised after the corrected deck went out
- Measurement source
- Founder-reported; the round is confirmed by the client, not audited by ThriveFinity
- Attribution limit
- The raise was decided by the investors on the whole business, of which the deck is one input. The verification removed three specific objections; it did not cause the investment. We do not know whether the same round would have closed without it.
NEXT STEP
Your Deck Has Claims That haven’t Been Tested
Release Assurance doesn’t soften the numbers. It makes them holdable in a room.