A source-backed audit built with StrawberryEvidence & methodology ↓
treg · Run dated 23 September 2026

The funding filter failed.

All 27 companies that passed the gate have evidence against the workflow’s “latest round Series A” requirement. Finding a deliverable email does not repair that mismatch.

Audit conducted 26 October 2026. Historical cutoff: 23 September 2026. Original workflow ↗

27 / 27

passed rows with funding disqualifications*

26 · Series B before cutoff1 · Self-funded*

Each square represents one company, not an email.
*Aha!’s self-funded status relies partly on an undated current company statement. No archived cutoff snapshot was retrieved.

01 / The qualification error

Later-stage companies passed a Series A filter.

The public workflow asks its company-search step for “Latest round Series A.” Yet 26 of the 27 retained companies had announced a Series B or Series B extension before the run. The remaining company, Aha!, says it is 100 percent self-funded, consistent with its 2023 bootstrap history.

These are qualification failures under the implemented filter, not companies that simply became ineligible after the run.

PermitFlow

Series B · 2 December 2025
Announced more than nine months before the run.

Gamma

Series B · 10 November 2025
Its own founder announcement identifies the round.

Flam

Series B · 18 September 2026
Five days before the workflow’s cutoff.

02 / What the receipt establishes

Email deliverability is a different test.

The published CSV supports the reported funnel counts. It records 27 retained companies, 21 emails found, and 20 verifier-positive results. That is internally consistent, but it does not establish that those 20 are qualified prospects.

27

companies passed the fit gate

21

emails reported found

20

emails labelled valid by the verifier

?

correct people and mailbox ownership independently confirmed

Names, titles, and addresses are redacted from the public export. We cannot independently check the requested decision-maker, mailbox ownership, or the verifier’s verdict. Nor should an “unknown” verification result be counted as deliverable.

The advertised $0.12 figure is approximately $2.33 divided by 20 verifier-positive emails. It is not a demonstrated cost per fully qualified lead.

The conclusion

A consistent receipt, an unsupported qualification claim.

The run demonstrates an enrichment pipeline with reported deliverable emails. It does not demonstrate a lead list that met its own latest-funding filter.

A stronger evaluation would independently check company eligibility before enrichment, keep verifier-positive emails separate from qualified prospects, and publish dated evidence for each qualification decision.

How this was made

Use Strawberry to check the work.

Strawberry read the published CSV, checked all 27 companies against dated sources, and kept missing evidence separate from confirmed mistakes. It then built this page, with each finding linked to its source.

You can do the same with your own lead lists: check them against your actual criteria before anyone sends an email.

Get Strawberry ↗

Evidence & limits

What this audit can support.

The audit covers all 27 rows marked “pass” in the public CSV. A dated pre-cutoff Series B is sufficient to reject “latest round Series A”; the table does not claim that Series B was each company’s final round.

Historical employee counts were mostly unverified. Current headcounts were not projected backward. US headquarters, dual headquarters, and broad sales/marketing use also involve interpretation. Those questions do not change the documented funding contradictions.

Aha! is the exception to the dated-round evidence: its current official self-funded statement supports exclusion, but is not an archived September 23 snapshot. This audit does not establish that any email was invalid, that spending was fabricated, or that the failure was intentional.

Inspect all 27 funding findings
CompanyDisqualifying evidenceSource
OrumSeries B · Nov 2022Read evidence ↗
AlignedSeries B · Jul 2026Read evidence ↗
PermitFlowSeries B · Dec 2025Read evidence ↗
Defense UnicornsSeries B · Jan 2026Read evidence ↗
RemotePassSeries B · May 2026Read evidence ↗
GammaSeries B · Nov 2025Read evidence ↗
AppCardSeries B · Feb 2016Read evidence ↗
Jones SoftwareSeries B · Jan 2025Read evidence ↗
ProphecySeries B · Jan 2025 · B extensionRead evidence ↗
RudderStackSeries B · Feb 2022Read evidence ↗
TriomicsSeries B · May 2026Read evidence ↗
GigsSeries B · Dec 2024Read evidence ↗
Higgsfield AISeries B · Aug 2026Read evidence ↗
Certa.aiSeries B · Sep 2023Read evidence ↗
Mighty NetworksSeries B · Apr 2021Read evidence ↗
ChurnZeroSeries B · Mar 2021Read evidence ↗
gnani.aiSeries B · Mar 2026Read evidence ↗
Cypress.ioSeries B · Dec 2020Read evidence ↗
Aha!Self-funded · temporal caveatRead evidence ↗
HebbiaSeries B · Jul 2024Read evidence ↗
DoxelSeries B · Aug 2021Read evidence ↗
HypersonixSeries B · Jul 2021 reportedRead evidence ↗
EntropikSeries B · Feb 2023Read evidence ↗
Wispr FlowSeries B · Aug 2026Read evidence ↗
KreaSeries B · Apr 2025Read evidence ↗
FlamSeries B · 18 Sep 2026Read evidence ↗
HiverSeries B · Mar 2022Read evidence ↗

Primary reference: workflow prompt, receipt and stated limitations. Source prices and provider outcomes are self-reported by treg. This is an independent evidence review, not a controlled rerun.