Our practices for covering AI startup funding rounds have evolved meaningfully, and the specific changes are worth naming.
We raised our bar beyond round size alone
Early coverage sometimes prioritized rounds primarily by dollar figure. We now weight additional signal - investor quality, disclosed metrics - more heavily than size alone.
We started tracking rounds against later outcomes
We didn't consistently revisit whether heavily-covered rounds led to companies that actually grew into their valuations. We now try to do more of this retrospective reporting.
We got more careful about distinguishing closed from rumored rounds
We now flag more explicitly when a round is reported but not confirmed closed, a distinction we weren't always careful about in earlier coverage.
Why this evolution matters
Funding coverage shapes perceptions of which companies matter, and we think being more disciplined about what we amplify and how we describe uncertain rounds is worth stating explicitly.