If an investor revisits an IR deck, use the observation to prepare a focused follow-up question or supporting update. It is not enough to infer investment interest or a decision.
What context should the founder assemble?
Confirm the deck revision, send date, recipients, last conversation, and any explicit request. Separate the narrative deck from financial, legal, or diligence material that may require a different review process.
FeatPaper can show revisit timing and page-level viewing flow where supported by the cited source. Compare that record with what the investor asked about, such as market, business model, team, or milestones.
What should be updated?
Revise the deck only when the underlying information changed or a known question needs a clearer explanation. Date new figures and assumptions. Keep an archive of the revision originally sent so the discussion remains traceable.
If the investor returned to a page, prepare context for that topic but keep alternative explanations open. The next message should invite the investor to identify what matters.
How should the follow-up sound?
Be brief and specific: mention a factual update, offer a relevant supporting item, or ask whether a topic would be useful to discuss. Do not disclose internal viewing detail as a way to pressure a response.
Founder follow-up checklist
- Is the sent deck revision preserved?
- Are new figures and assumptions dated?
- Are viewing records paired with conversation context?
- Is the message useful even without a reply?
- Does the next step respect the investor’s stated process?
What remains for native review?
An English reviewer should check investor-relations language, tone, and the careful treatment of revisit observations. Native review remains pending.