YC Fall 2026 Batch Review
This tool is IASV's pipeline for reviewing the Y Combinator Fall 2026 batch. IASV is a generalist seed fund investing in big, bold, and resilient ideas, backing early-stage companies led by great founders harnessing AI to shape the future, with particular depth in Vertical AI, HealthTech, and Robotics. Every company in the batch has been scraped from the YC website, screened against IASV's thesis, tiered by priority, and OS-enriched with founder backgrounds, market sizing, competitive landscape, and key diligence questions.
How it works
Step 1
Scrape
All YC F26 companies scraped via Playwright (founders, LinkedIn, website, tags)
Step 2
Screen
Automated preliminary screening against IASV thesis → tier assignment
Step 3
OS-Enrich
Web research: exec summary, TAM/SAM/SOM, competitors, key questions
Step 4
Partner Review
Assign leads, add notes, set status, decide next steps
Tier Definitions
Companies are tiered based on alignment with IASV's investment thesis. IASV is a generalist seed fund backing great founders harnessing AI to shape the future, with particular depth in Vertical AI, HealthTech, and Robotics. The fund also invests across FinTech/InsurTech, B2B/Enterprise, DevTools/Infra, and hard tech, largely skipping consumer and social media.
T1
HIGH PRIORITY (7 companies)
Strong thesis fit across multiple verticals. AI-first companies with direct relevance to IASV's core areas (Vertical AI, HealthTech, Robotics, FinTech/InsurTech, B2B infrastructure). These companies should be reviewed first and assigned to a partner for deeper evaluation.
T2
INTERESTING (40 companies)
Good thesis fit in at least one vertical. Worth monitoring and reviewing if capacity allows. May be promoted to T1 after partner review or if new information surfaces.
T3
WATCHLIST (1 company)
Tangential thesis fit. Interesting technology but not a clear match for current fund strategy. Monitor for pivots or portfolio synergies.
T4
PASS (1 company)
Low thesis fit. Does not align with IASV's investment areas. No further action unless the thesis evolves.
Current Enrichment Levels
| Level |
What's Included |
Applied To |
| YC Scrape | Company name, one-liner, description, founders + LinkedIn/X, website, tags, YC partner, team size | All 49 companies |
| Preliminary Screen | Thesis fit scoring, sector tagging, tier assignment, suggested partner domain | 47 companies (Vyra + Micora pending) |
| OS-Enrich | Executive summary, TAM/SAM/SOM with sources, competitive landscape (5+ competitors with funding), key diligence questions, deal terms | 48 companies |
| Full Deal-Evaluate | Investment thesis, scorecard, strengths/risks, True Potential panel, anti-bias review, next steps | Not yet applied, requires partner approval |
Open Questions for Mike & Mark OPEN
These are process and strategy questions that need partner alignment before scaling this workflow to future batches.
1. Tier definitions and selection criteria
The current tier assignments are based on automated thesis-fit scoring. Should the criteria be refined?
- What specific signals should promote a company to Tier 1? (e.g., team pedigree, revenue traction, specific verticals)
- Should there be a minimum team size or founding date threshold?
- Are the current screening verticals (Vertical AI, HealthTech, Robotics, FinTech/InsurTech, B2B/Enterprise, DevTools/Infra) the right filter set? Should we add or remove any?
- Should we weigh YC partner reputation or batch cohort signals?
2. When to assign a company to a specific partner
Currently the screening suggests partner domains (e.g., Mike + Leonid for Defense/Aerospace, Mark + Matias for DevTools/Infra), but no formal assignment happens until here.
- Should all Tier 1 companies be auto-assigned by domain expertise?
- Should partners self-select from the pipeline, or should there be a round-robin / capacity-based assignment?
- What's the expected throughput: how many companies can each partner actively review per batch?
3. OS-Enrich vs. Preliminary Screen vs. Full Deal-Evaluate
Three levels of analysis exist. When should each be triggered?
- Preliminary Screen (automated, ~30 seconds per company). Currently applied to all. Is this the right default for every batch company?
- OS-Enrich (web research, ~2 minutes per company). Currently applied to all non-Pass. Should we limit this to T1+T2 only? Or keep enriching everything?
- Full Deal-Evaluate (deep dossier, ~5 minutes per company). Not yet applied. Should this only trigger after a partner says "yes, go deeper"? Or should T1 companies get it automatically?
4. Status workflow and pipeline stages
The current status options are: New, Screening, Meeting Set, Active, Tracking, Pass. Do these match how we actually move deals?
- Do we need a "Needs Discussion" or "IC Review" stage?
- Should status changes trigger any notifications or automated actions?
- What defines the transition from Screening → Meeting Set? Is it a partner's call or a threshold score?
5. Batch cadence and re-scanning
YC batches grow over time. F26 currently has 51 companies but could reach 200+.
- How often should we re-scrape to catch new additions?
- Should new companies automatically get the full pipeline (screen + enrich)?
- Do we want alerts when new companies matching specific criteria are added?
6. Sharing and access
This tool is currently open (no auth). Notes and lead assignments sync for everyone.
- Do we need authentication or is link-sharing sufficient for now?
- Should we build separate batch dashboards per YC season, or one unified pipeline?
- Should notes be visible to all partners or scoped per user?
×
