- Disclosure level
- public / low disclosure
- selective disclosure
- full confidential discussion-ready disclosure
- Company type
- single-asset therapeutics
- platform therapeutics
- diagnostics
- tools / enabling technology
- cell therapy / gene therapy
- synthetic biology / other biotech model
- Stage
- idea / formation
- discovery
- preclinical
- IND-enabling
- clinical
- Raise objective
- get first meeting
- move from first meeting to diligence
- support full diligence
- support partnership discussion
If audience or disclosure level is missing, recommend a version split before writing the full BP.
Version gate
This distinction is mandatory.
Non-confidential deck
Goal: earn the next meeting without unnecessary disclosure.
Usually include:
- Title / company one-liner
- Executive summary / investment highlights
- Unmet need
- Why current approaches fail
- Company thesis / platform or asset advantage
- Lead program or strongest proof point
- Pipeline overview
- Team
- Milestones
- Financing ask and use of proceeds
Do not include:
- unpublished technical know-how
- detailed protocols
- proprietary screening logic
- manufacturing trade secrets
- non-public partner, investor, customer, or licensing details
- unnecessary personal, patient-level, or traceable technical details
Confidential deck
Goal: support serious diligence.
Usually include:
- Cover page
- Confidentiality statement page
- Executive summary
- Company overview
- Disease / unmet need
- Scientific rationale or mechanism
- Platform or discovery engine
- Lead program deep dive
- Supporting data and differentiation
- Development plan, regulatory path, and milestones
- Pipeline overview
- IP / licensing / rights position
- Team and advisors
- Financing ask, use of proceeds, and value-inflection milestones
- Appendix if needed
Include only what the user is authorized to disclose. Even in confidential form, avoid unnecessary personal or patient-level detail.
Confidentiality page
For confidential decks, include one standalone page with both Chinese and English text.
Chinese:
本材料包含[公司名称]的保密信息，仅供经授权的接收方为投资评估或合作评估之目的内部使用。未经[公司名称]事先书面同意，任何人不得全部或部分复制、披露、转载、分发或用于其他目的。本材料所载信息可能持续更新，不构成任何承诺或陈述。
English:
This presentation contains confidential information of [Company Name]. It is provided solely to authorized recipients for internal evaluation in connection with a potential investment or business collaboration. No part of this presentation may be copied, disclosed, reproduced, distributed, or used for any other purpose without the prior written consent of [Company Name]. The information herein is subject to update and does not constitute a binding representation or commitment.
This language is drafting support only and not legal advice.
Core BP logic
A biotech BP should answer, in order:
- What important problem exists?
- Why do current approaches fall short?
- What scientific or technical insight changes the odds?
- Why can this company execute?
- What evidence already reduces the main risk?
- What must be proven next?
- Why is this worth funding now?
Workflow
- Write the core thesis in one sentence:
This company matters because ________.
- Identify the dominant story:
- lead asset with near-term proof
- platform already producing credible programs
- enabling technology with commercial leverage
- clinically de-risked asset with execution upside
- hard-to-access biology made tractable by a specific method
- Find the strongest anchor:
- compelling efficacy data
- differentiated mechanism
- privileged delivery or tissue access
- faster regulatory path
- unique platform output
- founder or operator credibility
- public partnership or validation
- Build the narrative spine:
- problem
- why current options fail
- why this approach can do better
- evidence it is more than a concept
- path to next value-inflection point
- why this team can get there
- why invest now
- Choose slide order by company type rather than forcing one template.
- Translate each science claim into investor meaning.
- Flag missing pieces, especially:
- unclear indication choice
- weak differentiation
- weak translational bridge
- unclear regulatory path
- missing CMC or manufacturability discussion when central
- weak IP or rights explanation
- no milestone-based use of funds
- no explanation of what this round will prove
Output format
Default output should include:
- recommended deck version
- core thesis sentence
- audience and disclosure recommendation
- recommended slide order
- page-by-page logic, including:
- page title
- what question it answers
- key claim
- evidence to show
- what not to include
- missing evidence or weak logic
- rewrite suggestions
- open questions founders must answer before sending
Style rules
- use precise language, not slogans
- prefer short declarative titles
- state unknowns clearly
- label early claims honestly
- simplify science without hiding risk
- tie financing ask to milestones
- keep team slides concise unless team quality is central to de-risking
- treat reference materials as pattern sources, not copy sources
- do not turn assumptions into facts
- do not make animal, in vitro, internal, or proposed findings sound like clinical proof
Quality check
Before finalizing, verify:
- source ownership / authorization / public status is clear when relevant
- audience is clear
- confidential vs non-confidential choice is clear
- confidential decks include a standalone bilingual confidentiality page
- one thesis dominates the deck
- the strongest proof point appears early
- science slides explain why they matter to an investor
- milestones are concrete
- financing ask maps to milestones
- risks are reduced, not hidden
- hypotheses and established facts are separated
- no unnecessary sensitive, personal, patient-level, or traceable technical detail appears
- no non-public third-party detail appears