Look, I agree with you in theory, but in practice these reasons are an exception rather than the rule. 99 times out of 100 that's <i>not</i> why a company gets rejected (and in the one case when it does get rejected for that reason and that reason only, the founders know it).<p>VC business is too binary and too cutthroat for these things to matter in any other than exceptionally odd cases. Since nine out of ten investments fail, they need to fund companies that have a chance of giving a 10x return <i>just to break even</i>. Considering that the limited partners could put their money into treasuries instead, they probably need to double the fund's worth to justify a high risk investment. That means that other than breaking even, they need a company that has absolutely <i>massive</i> returns. A google, basically.<p>There is no "ok", "good", "fantastic" and "really fantastic". It's either a google or they're out of businesses. So if a company like that comes along, unless it's a <i>really</i> edge case, all other reasons get swept under the rug. And if a company isn't a google, well then, it wasn't a good investment for a VC business model anyway.