LaChoy,

I have completed my review of LaunchPad based on the areas of the site I was able to work through. I continue to find the overall concept compelling, and the presence of other applications operating in this space appears to support a meaningful need for the service.

I approached this review by progressing through the application in the order outlined. The experience generally provided basic-level feedback until reaching the financial projection and KPI section. At that stage, I was unable to input the depth of data and assumptions that would be necessary to support a properly detailed business and financial plan. I've shared the observations below from my perspective as both an investor and a former banker.

For your reference, I have summarized my observations below in logical sequence:

1. The financial section does not request balance sheet inputs (e.g., CapEx, depreciation methodology, or related debt), resulting in balance sheet outputs that appear incomplete or potentially inaccurate.
2. The balance sheet section appears incomplete without many of the standard balance sheet assets and liabilities or a fully detailed capital section.
3. There is no ability to view the financial model in a traditional three-statement format.
4. EBITDA does not appear to be calculated in a traditional manner, as depreciation and interest adjustments (including non-recurring items) are not reflected.
5. The AI-generated income statement reflects only four expense line items, resulting in an underdeveloped and not fully loaded income statement.
6. The cash flow presentation does not follow a GAAP-style format, which limits visibility into true sources and uses of funds during the period.
7. The Funding Simulator appears to reflect primarily equity-based funding assumptions and does not incorporate essential debt scenarios.
8. The advanced financial section does not yet provide the level of detail typically required for informed decision-making or bank-level review.
9. The model does not capture founder background information, which would normally be part of a bank underwriting package.
10. The model does not appear to address collateral considerations, which are a key bank factor when extending credit.
11. The relationship and mechanics between the platform and funding/bank linkages are not yet clear.
12. PDF print quality appears somewhat inconsistent.

These represent my initial observations based on the portions of the platform I was able to review. I hope this feedback is helpful to you as you continue refining and enhancing the product. From my perspective, there is an opportunity to deepen financial modeling to better align with more comprehensive planning and underwriting expectations.

Regards,
Greg Ochs