What I don't get it how relevant this info is for companies at such an early stage. For the few home runs each year, oftentimes a bunch of the success can be at

What I don't get it how relevant this info is for companies at such an early stage. For the few home runs each year, oftentimes a bunch of the success can be attributed to aid provided by some of the VCs. They may provide value between seed and an A round since the investors often matter less there, but one there is a provable business model after A or after B, the investor, if chosen correctly, can be a big multiplier of value, especially for first time entrepreneurs. Good VCs like A16Z, help with hiring, provide great signaling to potential partners, potential hires and future investors, and well as helping refine the business model. Seems like any score they ascribe to a company would have to incorporate the value of each of their clients. e.g. the scores given to A16Z would look different from VenRock, since the compatibilities between the startup and the VC matter. VenRock is likely to multiply the value of a health-related startup in a way that most other VCs can't and this changes things. I'd even go as far as saying that for some VCs the partner you get should be factored into the scores as well.