Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Identify target accelerators and write the application
2–4 weeks
Identify 3–5 accelerator programmes that are a genuine fit for your stage and domain, and write the application for at least one. Accelerator applications reward clarity on three things: what you are building (specific product and customer), what traction you have (real numbers — not potential, but actuals), and why this team (what specific non-obvious advantage makes you the right people to build this). Most failed accelerator applications are rejected because the traction numbers are absent, or because 'why this team' defaults to credentials rather than earned insight. The application writing process itself is valuable independently of whether you are accepted — it forces precision about the business.
Proof required
Share a list of 3–5 target accelerators with a one-sentence justification for each (why this programme specifically is a fit for your business at this stage). Share your draft application for at least one programme — the full answers to the application questions, not a summary. If the application asks for traction, those numbers must be real (revenue, users, or validated demand).
What gets checked
- 3–5 accelerators named with specific fit rationale — not 'YC is a good accelerator' but 'YC funds B2B SaaS at our stage with global ambition, which matches our business; our two target companies are YC alumni'.
- Draft application is complete — all required questions answered.
- Traction numbers in the application are real and specific — any revenue, user, or validation numbers must match financial evidence available.
Common mistakes
- Accelerators chosen by prestige rather than fit — applying to programmes that don't invest in your stage or sector wastes application cycles.
- Draft application is a summary rather than the actual answers — the application writing process must produce the real text.
- 'Why this team' section defaults to CVs — academic credentials are weak traction; specific insights earned through customer conversations or relevant domain experience are stronger.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Arena
What a verifier looks for
- The 3–5 accelerator choices should reflect genuine fit — ask 'have you spoken to any founders who have been through this programme?' Informed targeting is more credible than list-based targeting.
- Traction numbers in the application must match financial evidence — if the application claims £X in revenue, that should be verifiable against a payment processor.
- The 'why this team' section should name earned insight, not credentials — ask 'what do you know about this customer that you couldn't have known without doing this work?'
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Submit applications and attend interviews
4–8 weeks (applications submitted + interview timeline)
Submit applications to the target programmes and advance to at least one interview. The interview is the evidence that the application quality was sufficient — most accelerator programmes receive hundreds of applications and interview only 5–15%. The interview evidence is a written reflection on the interview: what you were asked, what you answered, and what you would answer differently. Accelerator interviews are designed to stress-test the founder's understanding of their own business, and the reflection on the interview is often more valuable than the outcome.
Proof required
Share confirmation of application submission for at least 2 of your target programmes (email confirmation or screenshot). Share a written reflection on at least one interview you attended: name 3 questions you were asked, how you answered each, and one answer you would give differently now. If you were not invited to interview, share a written hypothesis for why, based on any feedback received.
What gets checked
- Confirmation of submission for at least 2 programmes.
- Interview reflection names specific questions — not 'they asked about traction' but the actual question wording.
- At least one answer the submitter would give differently is named specifically — not 'I would be more confident' but 'I would have answered the churn question with our actual 4-month retention data instead of describing it qualitatively'.
Common mistakes
- No interview invitation received: a common outcome; document the hypothesis for why — this reflection is more valuable than the outcome.
- Interview reflection describes the outcome (accepted/rejected) rather than the content — the questions asked and the answers given are the useful data.
- Only one programme applied to — applying to fewer than 2 programmes is statistically risky given acceptance rates.
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Application submission confirmations must show both the programme name and the date — confirm they are within the relevant application cycle.
- Interview reflection must name specific questions — vague descriptions of the interview indicate either poor memory of it or that the reflection was not written close to the time.
- The 'would answer differently' section is the most credible part — a specific improved answer demonstrates genuine processing of the experience.
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Receive an offer — acceptance decision and rationale
2–4 weeks (offer → decision)
Receive an acceptance offer from at least one accelerator programme and make a decision. The decision — whether to accept or decline — must be documented with a rationale. Accepting an accelerator offer is not automatically the right choice: the equity dilution, the time commitment, and the programme fit must be evaluated against the specific stage and needs of the business. Documenting the decision rationale is the evidence that the founder made an informed choice rather than a default one.
Proof required
Share a screenshot or forwarded email showing the acceptance offer from the programme (programme name and offer visible; specific equity terms can be redacted). Document your acceptance or declination decision: state whether you accepted or declined, and write 150 words on the specific factors that drove the decision — including any factors that made you hesitate.
What gets checked
- Acceptance offer is shown — an interview invitation is not an offer.
- Decision rationale is specific — 'we accepted because the programme is the best in our space and the network value exceeds the dilution' is specific; 'it was a great opportunity' is not.
- Factors that caused hesitation are named — even an enthusiastic acceptance should identify at least one thing the founder considered as a potential downside.
Common mistakes
- No offer received — this is a legitimate outcome; in this case the M3 proof is a written analysis of what the process revealed about the business and what you would change in the next application cycle.
- Decision rationale is absent — 'we accepted' without reasoning is not a documented decision.
- Hesitation factors are absent — every accelerator offer involves at least one tradeoff (equity, location, programme fit) worth naming.
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- The offer email must show the programme name — a generic 'congratulations' without the programme name is not verifiable.
- Decision rationale must identify the tradeoffs evaluated — ask 'what was the equity offered and did that factor into your decision?'
- If no offer was received: the M3 alternative proof (analysis of what to change) should be specific — what specifically would you do differently in the next application cycle?
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Part of