Inventory-led model
Rejected where available source facts showed fulfilment, supplier, or stock-management exposure outside the buyer's tolerance.
Illustrative sample - Mandate-screen experiment #002
DV-SAMPLE-002 · Mandate Screen · Public demonstration
From a written buyer mandate to verdicts a buyer can inspect.
This methodology demonstration is based on real DealsVector experiment data. Last reviewed August 2026. Source links were public at the time of review and may become stale.
01 Mandate Statement
Asset-light online business with manageable operations.
The example buyer can review a broad budget range but wants minimum monthly profit, low owner workload, no inventory-heavy operations, no agency-style delivery, and no niche or model that creates obvious transferability problems.
Mandate used
- Maximum budget: USD 5,000,000; preferred range USD 300,000 to USD 2,500,000
- Minimum monthly profit: USD 15,000 when profit is supplied
- Owner workload: reject above 20 hours/week; 13 to 20 hours requires closer review
- Acceptable models include software, content, media, affiliate, apps, and digital products
- Exclude inventory-heavy physical products, fragile suppliers, agencies, and seller-personality dependence
02 Supported Inventory
113 current listings reviewed.
The screen separates obvious misses, closer-review failures, unresolved evidence gaps, deeper-review records, and shortlist entries. These are experiment outputs, not a simple subtraction chain.
01Mandate Statement: buyer criteria and exclusions.
02Supported Inventory: current covered opportunity set at observation time.
03Pass Log: outcome counts and representative rejection reasons.
04Shortlist: surviving records with unresolved diligence questions.
05Provenance: source facts remain separate from DealsVector interpretation.
113
Current listings reviewed
Supported opportunity set
48
Obvious misses
Trivial mandate conflicts
45
Failed on closer review
Analytical exclusions
3
Could not be resolved
Insufficient evidence
17
Deeper-review records
Required more attention
10
Shortlisted
Worth human review
03 Pass Log · Verdict Examples
The sample classifies fit against the mandate, not objective quality.
These examples show the current product logic: source facts are preserved, missing facts stay visible, and the first failed hard constraint matters.
| Listing / opportunity | Source facts used | Verdict | Why | Diligence question |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Empire 93687 | Affiliate; USD 1,200,181 ask; USD 37,506 monthly profit; 2 hrs/week. | Exact match | Visible budget, profit, workload, and model constraints passed. This is not a buy recommendation. | How durable are the traffic sources and lead-generation economics? |
| Empire 95525 | Amazon FBA; USD 257,494 ask; USD 12,262 monthly profit; 40 hrs/week. | Excluded | First hard failure was monthly profit below the mandate floor; inventory model and workload also conflicted. | None for this screen unless the buyer changes constraints. |
| Empire 95173 | Other; USD 938,585 ask; USD 19,554 monthly profit; 4 hrs/week. | Evidence gap | The business model was not clear enough from available source facts to classify against the mandate. | What is the actual operating model, revenue mechanism, and transferability risk? |
03 Pass Log · Reason Index
Disciplined rejection is the signature asset.
A Pass Log is not a proprietary algorithm. It is a plain record of what was reviewed, why it failed, what was unresolved, and what deserved deeper work.
Workload too high
Rejected where reported owner hours exceeded the buyer's preferred involvement level.
Supplier fragility
Rejected where the model appeared dependent on supplier, dropshipping, or fulfilment relationships the buyer wanted to avoid.
Excluded niche
Rejected where category or customer market conflicted with explicit buyer exclusions.
Owner-delivery service model
Rejected where the business appeared to rely on continuing service delivery rather than a transferable asset.
Evidence insufficient
Held back where required facts were missing. Missing evidence was not converted into a rejection fact.
04 Shortlist
Survivors worth human attention.
| Source | Model | Asking price | Monthly profit | Workload | Mandate fit | Largest unresolved point |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Empire 93687 | Affiliate | USD 1,200,181 | USD 37,506 | 2 hrs/week | Profit and workload clear the screen; no inventory conflict shown. | Traffic and revenue durability. |
| Empire 94350 | Info product | USD 942,316 | USD 26,175 | 5 hrs/week | Economics and workload fit; creative refresh risk remains material. | Seller or creative dependence. |
| Empire 94607 | Display advertising | USD 274,112 | USD 15,228 | 1 hr/week | Reported workload and economics fit the mandate. | Traffic-source stability. |
Worked example
One survivor, one decision bottleneck.
Source fact Reported profit, workload, and model cleared the buyer's screen.
Mandate interpretation Low reported owner involvement is the strongest visible fit.
Unknown / evidence gap Revenue durability may depend on traffic stability not visible in the public facts.
Inference Transferability depends on whether revenue survives without seller-specific advantage.
Scenario - not forecast A traffic-source shock would change the buyer's risk view; this is not a forecast.
Verification question
What percentage of profit comes from each traffic channel, and how stable were those channels over the last 12 months?
The verification question is the value handle: it tells the buyer what must be checked before a shortlist survivor deserves real diligence time.
05 Provenance
This sample uses public Empire Flippers listing pages as source provenance.
Marketplace facts belong to the source provider. DealsVector's screening, calculations, mandate interpretations, and Pass Log classifications are separate research outputs derived from available permitted information.
Boundary
This sample is research support, not investment advice, legal advice, broker representation, financial verification, or a guarantee that a suitable acquisition exists.
Start Mandate Desk