Which of our investments is your least favourite? Korvanta Ventures Fund I holds five companies with very different problems. Rank them on the numbers, pick one, and phrase it for a partner who may have sourced it.

Khetvik Mandi is the least favourite: at 1% contribution it makes Rs 4 crore against Rs 36 crore of fixed costs and needs 9 times its GMV to break even. Every other problem has a lever. Codevik's runway is a closing risk with a signed term sheet; Rinvik's bad loans cost 3.5% of the book against 4% earnings; Rangvik breaks even by trimming marketing to 40% of sales. Put it to the partner as a question about the number, not the founder.

Two things at once: whether you can judge companies on numbers, and whether you can say something uncomfortable to a senior person without either flattering or offending them. The safe dodge, refusing to pick, fails the first test; picking the company with the scariest headline fails the judgement. Think of a doctor in a ward: the patient who looks worst is not always the one in the most danger. The one in danger is the one whose problem has no treatment.

Give each problem its decisive number. Rinvik: half of 7% of an Rs 800 crore book is Rs 28 crore of losses against Rs 32 crore of pre-provision profit, still Rs 4 crore positive, and it breaks even only if bad loans reach 8%. Tighter lending fixes it. Rangvik: 62% gross margin less 45% marketing and 10% fulfilment leaves 7%, minus 12% fixed costs, so EBITDA is minus 5%. Cutting marketing to 40% of sales takes it to break-even, a lever it controls tomorrow. Codevik's three months of runway would be alarming without a signed term sheet; with one it is a closing risk to watch weekly, not a model problem.

Khetvik is different in kind. Rs 400 crore of GMV at 1% is Rs 4 crore of contribution against Rs 36 crore of fixed costs. To break even it needs Rs 3,600 crore of GMV, 9 times today, about 4.7 years at 60% growth, or a contribution margin of 9% at today's size. Agricultural produce is traded on thin spreads, so neither path is in its own hands, and it has 12 months of cash. That is a structural problem, not a cyclical one.

Lead with what is true and good, then the number, then what would change your mind. Something like: Khetvik has the second-fastest GMV growth in the fund, and the farmer network is hard to copy. My concern is that at 1% contribution it needs nine times today's GMV just to cover current fixed costs, and I could not see from the numbers which crops or regions earn more. If contribution on its best crop is several times the average, I would change my view. That framing respects the partner's judgement, because it asks for the data the partner may already have.

The limitation is honest humility. An outsider sees reported numbers, not the board pack. Say so, briefly, and do not retreat from the pick. The candidate in the original report noted the VP still looked annoyed; that is fine. What loses offers is a choice with no number behind it, or a choice softened until it says nothing.