This suffers from both the fundamental attribution error and the labor-theory-of-value error.
They seem to be implying:
1) We got funded.
2) We worked hard on our pitch deck.
3) The effort on our pitch deck is why we got funded.
I don't see any reason that their first pitch deck is better than their 12th or their 23rd. Just because the 23rd investor liked their business plan doesn't make that pitch deck, or their strategies to improve it, correct.
Your pitch deck will get you meetings, not investment. No one invests from only seeing a pitch deck.
From speaking with investors, we learned about better ways to get across what we are doing. What the key ares that interested investors, etc. Most of that we learned was from the actual conversation rather than specific feedback on the deck.
On a side note, the first version of this deck makes me slightly embarrassed. Even the "final" version does because the company has evolved since we closed our investment round.
They seem to be implying: 1) We got funded. 2) We worked hard on our pitch deck. 3) The effort on our pitch deck is why we got funded.
I don't see any reason that their first pitch deck is better than their 12th or their 23rd. Just because the 23rd investor liked their business plan doesn't make that pitch deck, or their strategies to improve it, correct.