Thank you for the constructive feedback. Let me explore three responses. First, and what will seem like a semantic argument, it is not a matter of reversibilit

Thank you for the constructive feedback. Let me explore three responses. First, and what will seem like a semantic argument, it is not a matter of reversibility/irreversibility. It is a matter of substitutability (i.e. whether you can substitute the founding team, whether you can substitute the technology/product, whether you can substitute the market). In every instance of a pillar being substituted, the venture would essentially change. Second, each pillar is substitutable. The sweet-spot hypothesis put forward in the newsletter does not argue that each cannot be substituted. Rather, those companies which fall in the sweet-spot are those which require no substitution of any of the pillars. Of course, very early-stage cos may not have got the product or the market (lack of PMF) and may not have the core team (hence, the need to hire); but, this does not mean the pillars need to be substituted (or 'reversed'). Finally, the sweet-spot hypothesis does not dismiss the need for a primary filter. It is highly unlikely that you will find a 'perfect' investment. The latticework of theses and heuristics explored throughout the newsletter aims to identify the risk factors of an investment. If one of the theses/heuristics in your latticework is a primary filter- and that filter is not present- you can avoid that investment. Your primary filter- it seems- would be market and later in the newsletter we identify that this is Scott Kupor's too (see Question 3 in the newsletter).