Fact vs Narrative in Deep Tech

Most deep-tech pitches are weak due to confusion about the relationship between facts and narrative.

At best, founders aren’t sure what a narrative is. At worst, they think facts and narrative are opposites — that narrative is something you use when your facts are lacking.

A simple scenario

Imagine you meet someone and they treat you kindly. You note it as a fact. You might conclude: “This person is a good person.”
Then later, that same person treats you poorly. Another fact. Now you have two true observations — and they conflict.

Your mind can’t leave the contradiction unresolved, so it constructs a narrative that explains both facts. Narrative is the container that holds them within a single worldview.

One narrative might be:
“He’s a great guy who just had a bad day.”
Another might be:
“He was only nice before because he wanted something.”

Same facts. Different narrative. Different meaning.

This happens everywhere — especially in the pitch room

You walk in with plenty of facts: small wins, experiments, metrics, tech insights. But they don’t add up to a definitive argument — by nature of startups, they can’t.

As you speak, a narrative forms in the audience’s mind — a unified interpretation emerging from what you present. This happens whether you intend it of it or not. The question is: is it the narrative you want?

Here’s the thing

Narratives are not optional, and they are not “spin.” They are the operating system of human understanding, rooted in something fundamental: our need for a coherent worldview. To cope with contradiction or complexity our minds form a narrative — by any means necessary.

A pitch is a game of coherence, not correctness.
To “control the narrative” is to construct a coherent worldview — by intentionally selecting the right facts and presenting them in the right order.
 If you don’t control the narrative, the investor’s mind will — and the result may not be the one you intended.