Toolkit · UKRI selection-gate kit
UKRI Selection Gate Diagnostic
Companion kit to UKRI’s new plan sorts spinouts into two groups. Formation strategy depends on which one you are in. · Markdown source
What this kit is
> Note. This kit is a thinking aid. LLM outputs vary by model, by inputs, and by context. Treat every output as a draft for your own review, not a finished deliverable. Nothing here constitutes legal or financial advice, and nothing in the prompt's output does either.
The piece argues that UKRI's July 2026 delivery plan creates a visible designation boundary — and that the evidence a founder has or has not documented determines which side of that boundary they are on. The kit's job is to make that argument operational for one specific founder.
The prompt is a short self-assessment: which UKRI instruments are in scope for the tracking framework, what designation-relevant evidence already exists, what is absent, and what that implies for the two decisions the piece names — TTO conversation framing and formation timing against the November IP deadline. The output is a routing decision and an evidence gap list, not a strategy.
One prompt. Five questions, at most one follow-up. One routing decision with a short action list.
How to use this kit
Read the piece first — the routing decision this prompt produces is only interpretable against the piece's argument. Then run the prompt in a single conversation. The output takes fifteen minutes to produce and roughly the same to review. The routing decision should be verifiable against what you told the agent; if it is not, run the self-check named in the output-handling section below before acting on anything.
The diagnostic prompt
The piece's core move is simple: UKRI has published what it looks for (potential, progress, need) but not what data its tracking framework will read. The working assumption the piece argues for — and this kit audits against — is that a framework identifying companies from past translational investments reads what has been filed: IAA and PoC reporting, milestone records, documented investor conversations. A founder who has made progress but not documented it is not legible to the framework, regardless of the quality of the underlying work. This prompt audits that legibility gap before the framework is operational, while there is still time to close it.
Prompt, copy into Claude, ChatGPT, or Codex CLI
Show the prompt
You are a UK commercialisation adviser who has worked on both sides of the IAA/PoC relationship — with founders inside translational programmes and with the institutional systems that assess them. You understand that UKRI has published selection criteria (potential, progress, need) but has not published the data sources its spin-out tracking framework will draw on; you work on the stated practitioner assumption that such frameworks read documented, filed progress — reporting data, milestone records, conversations on the record. You are on the founder's side: your job is to help them see their situation clearly, not to encourage them or reassure them. The insight before the questions, per UKRI's July 2026 delivery plan: IAA and PoC are the primary populations for its new tracking framework. UKRI has not published the framework's data inputs; the working assumption, argued in the companion piece, is that it will read what is already documented — not what has been achieved. A founder with solid progress and thin documentation is not legible to the framework. This prompt audits that legibility gap, and routes you toward the right next conversation. I am an academic founder who has been reading UKRI's July 2026 delivery plan and wants to know what it means for my formation strategy. I don't need to share specific funding amounts, bank positions, patent numbers, or cap-table details — those are not relevant to this audit and you should not ask for them. Ask me the following, two or three at a time, each with one line on why it matters. Brief answers are fine: Batch 1 — instrument scope: 1. Which UKRI translational instruments are you currently funded through or have been through in the last two years — IAA, Proof of Concept, Innovate UK, something else, or none? (Why: the tracking framework explicitly names IAA and PoC; being inside or outside those instruments is the first routing fork.) 2. Are you currently incorporated, in formation, or pre-incorporation? (Why: the Innovate UK Venture Builder pilot's first round required a company created in the last 24 months, and its window has already closed — it is a different instrument from Velocity, and the routing changes depending on where you are in that sequence.) Batch 2 — documentation and legibility: 3. When did you last submit a formal milestone report or progress update to your institution or funder — within the last three months, three to six months ago, or longer? (Why: the tracking framework reads milestone records as its evidence base; a gap in reporting is a gap in legibility, not just in compliance.) 4. Have any of these been documented in writing — a named TTO contact you are actively working with, a heads of terms or licence in principle, a first investor conversation? A yes/no and a rough count is enough. (Why: the piece's argument is that the framework assesses visible progress; these are the most legible forms of early commercial traction in UKRI's data environment.) Batch 3 — IP and formation timing: 5. Is your IP licence currently under negotiation, agreed in principle, or signed? (Why: UKRI is refreshing its IP policies in November 2026; the terms in force at completion govern the company's IP position. The timing of completion against that date is a concrete formation decision — not an abstract one.) If there is an area where you gave a very short answer and it would materially change the routing, ask one gentle follow-up. Otherwise, move directly to the output. When you have my answers, give me: ## Where you stand: routing and evidence gap **Routing decision** (one sentence): Either "You are inside the instruments the tracking framework names — here is what that means for your TTO conversation" or "You are not in named scope — here is what to do differently." **What this means in practice** (three to five bullet points): The specific implication of the routing decision for the founder's next ninety days — TTO conversation framing, formation timing relative to November, whether the Venture Builder pilot is relevant. Do not pad this with general encouragement; each bullet should name something the founder can do or decide this month. **Evidence legibility audit** (a short table): | Evidence type | Status you described | Legibility to the framework | What to do if absent | |---|---|---|---| Rows: milestone reporting, TTO engagement, IP licence status, investor conversation on record. Status comes from what I told you — do not invent it. Legibility is high / partial / low. "What to do if absent" is one concrete action, not a principle. **November IP deadline** (one short paragraph): State clearly whether the founder's licence timing puts them before or after November 2026, what that implies under the piece's argument, and what the relevant action is if they are in active negotiation. If the licence status I gave you does not let you determine this, say so. A few constraints: do not invent a milestone record, a TTO conversation, or an investor conversation I did not describe; do not give legal advice on the licence terms; do not name UKRI staff or programme officers; flag clearly anything that depends on programme details that may have changed since July 2026 and that I should verify directly. Treat this output as a first draft. Before acting on the routing decision, check the "Evidence legibility audit" table against your actual records — any row where the status I described does not match what your files show should be corrected before you use the table to frame a conversation. Self-check before you answer: the routing decision names the specific instrument scope; the evidence table rows all trace to something I told you; the November deadline paragraph states a clear implication or explicitly flags that the information I gave was insufficient to determine one; and no row in the table invents evidence I did not describe.
What to do with the output
The routing decision is the output's spine. Read it against the piece's argument: the tracking framework operates on what is documented, not what exists. If the routing decision says you are inside IAA/PoC scope, the action is documentation and conversation, not programme research. If it says you are outside, the Venture Builder pattern is the relevant signal — its first window (closed 22 May 2026, per Innovate UK's competition brief) asked for recent formation, ICURe lineage, and under £100,000 of prior investor funding — and arriving at the next door with a clear technology statement, a named IP licence in principle, and one documented investor conversation is the bar the piece names.
The evidence legibility audit table is the working tool. Each row where the status column says “partial” or the legibility column says “low” is a closure action before the tracking framework is operational in March 2027, per UKRI's published key results. The piece's argument is that this window is not dead time; the kit gives you the list.
Eval check — run this before you use the output for anything consequential:
Read the evidence legibility audit table. For each row, confirm that the status column reflects something you actually told the agent — not something the agent inferred or assumed. Any row where the status does not match what you said should be corrected in the same conversation before the table is used to frame a TTO or investor conversation. A table with one fabricated row is not a diagnostic; it is a liability. The check takes under five minutes: four rows, four comparisons against your own answers.
What to do once you have run the kit
The kit produces one routing decision and one evidence gap list. Three things complete the work:
Share the evidence legibility audit table with your TTO contact. The piece's argument is that the assessment happens on the basis of what is visible — a TTO who knows which rows are thin can help close them through the reporting channels that feed the framework's evidence base. This is a conversation, not a report; the table is the agenda.
Check the November IP deadline row against your actual licence negotiation timeline. If you are in active negotiation and the completion date is uncertain, the piece identifies November as the relevant hard date. The terms in force at completion govern the company's IP position; the piece points to the USIT guide, which UKRI's IP Strategic Statement names among recognised best practices for spinout deal structures. That is the starting reference for that conversation with your TTO and solicitor — not this kit.
Watch for the Venture Builder programme's next window if the routing decision sends you there. The pilot's first round closed on 22 May 2026, with projects starting by 1 October 2026 according to Innovate UK's published brief, and it targeted recently formed, pre-first-raise companies with ICURe lineage — the Hickson-gap population as UKRI has chosen to serve it. Arriving at a future window with a technology statement, a licence in principle, and one documented investor conversation is achievable in ninety days for a founder who treats it as the primary task. The kit will have told you whether that description fits your situation.
← Back to SpinUp Forge