One grant pitch deck in two versions, and one story behind both

A grant pitch deck that a funder wants in a confidential and a public version is best built as one master. Cut the public version from the master, and make every later change to both at once, so the two never tell different stories.

The founder had something most early companies don't. A complete municipal sorting plant already existed. It was sitting in storage, taken apart. The company needed money for a year of feasibility work, from a development finance institution with a strict application.

There was a written form with 14 numbered questions, plus a one-line summary and a public description of the idea. Every answer had a character limit. There was also a pitch deck, and the funder wanted it twice: a confidential version for its own reviewers and one that could be shared more widely.

Two decks drift apart fast

Here's the trouble with two versions of the same deck. You fix a sentence in one and forget the other. Soon the funder and the public are reading slightly different stories.

So we never treated them as two decks. The confidential deck was the master. The public deck was the same deck with two slides taken out, 20 slides against 18. Every change after that went into both at once.

We wrote the edits as a script. It finds each slide by its heading, never by its page number, because the page numbers differ between the two versions. The same script ran on both files. A second check listed every money figure in each deck, slide by slide, along with any old wording that should have gone. We could see what the public version showed before it went anywhere.

What the reviews found

A reviewer the founder brought in left 19 comments. Ten were wording fixes, and we put them in as written. Four needed a decision, so we gave the founder three options for each, with our pick.

The reviewer's biggest point was confusion. A reader couldn't tell the press from the sorting lines, or whether a later fuel-making stage was part of the plan now. We split it out. The sorting lines recover the dry materials and the press squeezes out the organics. The fuel stage comes later.

That work exposed a real gap. The deck said the plant would make energy and gas from food waste. That needs a digester, and the deck never mentioned one. We asked the founder. There's no digester in the first two stages, so the organics get sold to composting or biogas operators. The deck stopped claiming energy the plant wouldn't make.

After a call with the funder, we turned open questions into plain statements and swapped rough durations for real dates. We also added a slide on why this founder fits the job. Each change went into both decks from the same script.

The written grant answers

Every answer fit inside its limit. We printed the count under each one, so the founder could see how much room an edit had.

We also flagged the candid answers for the founder to approve. One said the plant had no measured performance data yet, and named the witnessed test that would produce it. Another said the partner relationships were interest rather than signed agreements.

What we built

• A confidential deck of 20 slides and a public deck of 18, cut from one master
• One edit script that finds slides by heading, so it runs on both decks
• A check that lists every money figure and stale line in each deck
• Written answers to 14 questions plus a summary and a public description, each inside its limit

Why it matters for your raise

If a funder asks for a public deck and a private one, making the second deck is quick. The hard part is the next five rounds of edits. Pick the master on day one, and make every change there first.

A reviewer who spots two versions of your plan will wonder which one is true. A reviewer who sees the same plan in both will get on with judging it.