Client Deck vs. SkaFld Deliverables Analysis
Date: December 15, 2025
Purpose: Determine how the original client deck changes our approach to final deliverable and proposal
Reference: Original ask from analysis/documents/Sixth Wall Project Brief.md
Original Client Ask (December 12, 2025)
From Frank Weil's brief:
Deliverable: 4-5 slides for the pitch deck
To include:
- Clearer POV and specificity on our tech thesis
- What the tech needs of the creator ecosystem are
- How the tech we are acquiring (or that comes with the companies we are acquiring) fits into our thesis
- How the tech from the company we are in talks with fits into our thesis
- How we should address the gaps between what we have and what we need to reach our potential
Audience: PE investment committee / Partners
Named Targets:
- Zuti Digital (under LOI)
- Mirage (under LOI)
- Impressive (under LOI)
- Influencer Intelligence Data Platform (in discussions)
- Celebrity Brand Agency (in discussions)
Gap Analysis: Client Deck vs. Original Ask
| Original Ask | Client Deck Status | Our Deliverable Status |
|---|---|---|
| Clearer POV on tech thesis | Vague "AI and ML-driven" | COMPLETE: Slide 1 with 3-pillar strategy |
| Creator ecosystem tech needs | Generic market stats only | COMPLETE: Slide 2 with stakeholder analysis |
| Acquisition tech fit | MISSING - No targets named | COMPLETE: Slide 3 with fit scores |
| Tech from companies in talks | MISSING - No details | COMPLETE: Mentioned in Gap Analysis |
| Gap analysis (build/buy/partner) | MISSING | COMPLETE: Slide 4 with budget |
Critical Finding
The client's own deck does NOT address the PE committee's request. They asked for technology depth, but their deck remains vision-focused without the specifics PE requested.
Side-by-Side Comparison
Slide-by-Slide Mapping
| Client Deck Section | Page | Our Equivalent | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Three Pillars" Overview | 3 | Slide 1: Technology Thesis | UPGRADE: We add specificity, proof points |
| Creator Industry Stats | 6 | Slide 2: Ecosystem Needs | UPGRADE: We add technology gap analysis |
| Technology Platform Concept | 12 | Slide 3: Acquisition Tech Fit | NEW: They have NO equivalent |
| Generic Timeline | 16 | Slide 4: Gap Analysis & Roadmap | UPGRADE: We add investment framework |
| N/A | - | Slide 5: CreatorOS Vision | NEW: Unified platform vision |
What Client Deck Has That We Don't
| Element | Client Deck | Our Response |
|---|---|---|
| Team Bios | Pages 17-18 | Not in scope (appropriate) |
| "Why Sixth Wall" Positioning | Page 14 | Could inform Slide 1 messaging |
| Formation Strategy | Page 15 | Useful for integration roadmap context |
| Creator Tier Model | Page 7 | Should reference in ecosystem needs |
What We Have That Client Deck Lacks
| Element | Our Deliverable | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Named Acquisition Targets | Mirage, Skailed, Zuti with details | CRITICAL - PE needs this |
| Technology Fit Scores | 9/10, 8/10, 7/10 methodology | HIGH - Adds rigor |
| Financial Framework | $16-24M build, $40-135M acquisition | CRITICAL - PE expects this |
| Synergy Matrix | Cross-company capability mapping | HIGH - Shows integration logic |
| Competitive Moat Analysis | Data network effects flywheel | HIGH - Answers "why invest" |
| Risk Assessment | Technology and integration risks | MEDIUM - Proactive risk acknowledgment |
Pillar Consistency Issue
The Problem
Client deck has INCONSISTENT pillar numbering:
| Location | Pillar 1 | Pillar 2 | Pillar 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Page 3 (Overview) | Creators | Technology | Brand & Intelligence |
| Page 9 (Deep Dive) | Brand & Intelligence | - | - |
| Page 10 (Deep Dive) | - | Creators | - |
| Page 11 (Deep Dive) | - | - | Technology |
Our Current Approach
We use: Creators | Technology | Brand & Intelligence
Recommendation
Standardize on the order that makes strategic sense:
- Brand & Intelligence (Revenue driver - starts the flywheel)
- Creators (Core asset - the product)
- Technology (Enabler - multiplies both)
This matches the value chain: Brands pay → Creators deliver → Technology scales.
Revised Deliverable Approach
Strategy Shift: "Foundation First, Vision Second"
Before: Our deliverables lead with unified CreatorOS vision (aspirational) After: Lead with proven assets, then paint unified vision (evidence-based)
Slide Modifications Recommended
Slide 1: Technology Thesis
- Keep: Three-pillar framework, technology layers, investment thesis
- Add: Reference to existing Skailed SaaS products as "foundation already in place"
- Modify: Open with "acquiring proven technology" not "building platform"
Slide 2: Creator Ecosystem Needs
- Keep: Market sizing, stakeholder needs, technology gaps
- Add: Reference client's creator tier model (Emergent/Professional/Venture)
- Modify: Align terminology with their existing deck language
Slide 3: Acquisition Tech Fit
- Keep: All content - this is THE most valuable slide
- Add: Highlight that client deck LACKS this information
- Modify: Lead with Skailed (strongest tech story) not alphabetically
Slide 4: Gap Analysis
- Keep: Build/Buy/Partner matrix, investment budgets
- Add: Map to their Q4 2025 → Q1 2027 timeline
- Modify: Include their "formation strategy" language
Slide 5: CreatorOS Vision
- Keep: Platform architecture, network effects
- Add: Connect to their "Portfolio OS" language from Page 12
- Modify: Position as evolution of what they're already building
Proposal Refinement
Original Proposal Positioning
Our claudedocs/client-proposal.md positions this as:
"A structured engagement delivering PE-ready technology thesis materials"
Revised Positioning
New Lead Message:
"Your current deck establishes the vision. PE wants the proof. We've developed the technology evidence that transforms your narrative from 'we want to build' to 'here's what we're acquiring and why it fits.'"
Value Proposition Enhancement
| Before | After |
|---|---|
| "We'll develop technology thesis slides" | "We've already analyzed your acquisition targets and mapped their technology fit" |
| "4-5 slides for pitch deck" | "Technology section that directly addresses PE's request for specificity" |
| "Supporting documentation" | "Diligence-ready analysis that survives investment committee scrutiny" |
New Proposal Sections to Add
- "Gap We're Filling": Explicitly state what their deck lacks vs. PE request
- "Immediate Value": We can deliver because analysis is largely complete
- "Risk Mitigation": Our slides address the "vague technology story" risk
Updated Delivery Strategy
Phase 1: Immediate (Days 1-2)
- Deliver refined slides with foundation-first messaging
- Provide technology synthesis as backup documentation
- Include pillar consistency recommendation
Phase 2: Integration (Days 3-5)
- Work with client to integrate into their Canva deck
- Ensure visual consistency with existing design
- Coach on presenting technology narrative
Phase 3: Optional Enhancement
- Due diligence prep for individual acquisitions
- Q&A preparation for investment committee
- Integration roadmap refinement
Key Messages for Client
- "Your deck is vision-strong but technology-light" - We fill that gap
- "PE asked for tech specificity" - Our slides deliver exactly that
- "You have strong acquisition targets" - We show HOW they fit together
- "The work is largely done" - Fast delivery is possible
Risk Factors
| Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Client may feel criticized | Frame as "complementary" not "corrective" |
| Pillar inconsistency may be intentional | Ask before changing |
| They may want different ordering of acquisitions | Offer flexibility |
| PE may have seen earlier deck version | Ensure slides integrate seamlessly |
Conclusion
The original client deck confirms our deliverables are precisely what was requested but not delivered. Our slides don't replace their deck - they provide the technology depth PE explicitly asked for.
Revised approach:
- Lead with "we've analyzed your acquisitions" not "we'll develop thesis"
- Show that work is substantially complete
- Position as filling the gap between their vision deck and PE's evidence request
- Emphasize speed-to-delivery as competitive advantage
Analysis prepared by SkaFld Studio | December 15, 2025