My 3-step checklist to filter "AI Slop" pitches (and asking for yours)

Hey everyone, I spend \~10 hours a week reading pitches (VIC, Substack, Reddit, etc.). Recently, the signal-to-noise ratio has gotten worse. I’m seeing way more "Deep Dives" that look professional but turn out to be hallucinated summaries with zero critical thought. I got tired of reading halfway through a pitch just to realize it’s garbage. So I built a personal workflow (Trade Ideas Flow) to "pre-grade" pitches before I even open them. I tried to code my own "buy-side filter" into it - basically simulating what I would do in the first 30 seconds of reading a analyst note. **My 3 "Auto-Fail" Criteria:** **1. The "Valuation disconnect"** * Check: Does the pitch explicitly link the thesis to the price? * Fail: A 2,000-word qualitative story ("This tech is amazing") that ends with a price target, but has zero bridge explaining *how* the numbers get there. If there is no "multiple expansion" or "earnings surprise" logic, it's just a story, not an investment. **2. The "Strawman" Risk Section** * Check: Does the author engage with the actual bear case? * Fail: Listing generic risks ("Market downturn," "Regulatory changes") instead of the specific company killer (e.g., "competitor X is pricing them out"). If the 'Risk' section feels like a legal disclaimer rather than an intellectual struggle, I pass. **3. Evidence vs. Assertion** * Check: What is the ratio of "I think" to "The data shows"? * Fail: Pitches that rely entirely on future-tense assertions ("They *will* capture market share") without citing past execution or unit economics. **The Question:** I’m actively tweaking this scoring logic. For those here who read a lot of pitches: **What is the one specific thing that makes you immediately close the tab?** Is it a specific type of management promotion? A lack of cash flow discussion? *(I’m happy to share the tool if anyone wants to test the grading logic against their own favorite pitches, but mostly looking to refine the rules.)*