A fair price both sides can explain

Balanced inputs: We use facts that are sourced, dated, and unitized. Assumptions are consistent across the report and cross-checked against reality. Outliers are flagged, not quietly averaged in. If a number changes upstream, the downstream math updates.

Business first: We start with what exists today, not a model target. Product in market, real usage, paying customers, and unit economics drive the band. A method output cannot leapfrog weak evidence. Strong evidence can justify a higher position in the band.

Market anchored: We reference current rounds, relevant comps, revenue multiples, and the cost of capital. Each data point has a source and a date so readers can judge freshness. Stale or non-comparable data is excluded. The market view informs both band selection and method checks.

Shared fairness : Both sides should be able to explain the number in a few sentences. Steps are reproducible from inputs to final output, with no hidden tweaks. If we override a method, we say what we changed and why. The same logic applies to everyone.

Durable value: We test how much the conclusion moves under reasonable changes. Band up or down one notch, weight shifts, and small input swings are shown. The report highlights what would materially raise or lower value and points to the evidence required.

Data with judgment: We prefer data, but early companies have gaps. Where inputs are thin, we use conservative ranges and state the rationale. We mark what would confirm the estimate. No false precision, no unexplained plugs.

Transparent and repeatable: Inputs are visible, formulas are standard, totals reconcile. The executive summary pulls directly from the method pages. Version, preparer, and sources create an audit trail. A reader can rebuild the result in a simple spreadsheet.

This report shows exactly how these principles are applied, step by step

The table links each principle to the proof we show and where to find it. Use it as a checklist while you review. If something is missing in a live report, we flag the gap and note the impact.

What this gives you. A traceable valuation with sources, consistent methods, and one reconciled result. You can verify inputs, rerun the math, and see where judgment was used. Fair, explainable, repeatable.

We value using a simple waterfall. We place the company on the stage map, read today’s market, set a fair range, then run methods to plot a point inside that range. That point drives round terms.

StageEvidence comes from what exists now. Product in users’ hands, team coverage and ownership, traction and retention, run rate and payback signals, and the current go to market motion. The stage sets the baseline for peers.

MarketWe look at funding climate and speed of round, exit activity and recent revenue multiples, plus macro and cost of capital. The band shifts the baseline to match current pricing.

Range This bracket is what a willing buyer and seller would call reasonable today. Method outputs must sit inside it. If one lands outside, we explain and constrain.

{{ Methods }}

Berkus credits core building blocks up to a cap.

Risk Factor starts at the midpoint and adjusts for 12 drivers.

Scorecard references recent comparable rounds.

VC Method works back from a sensible exit and required return.

Discounted Cash Flows needs a 1liner

First Chicago averages 3 scenarios of the DCF

ResultWeighted result = Σ(value × weight) = [Point].

Before we price the round, we locate the company on the startup curve. We score seven signals of progress. This sets the stage and the valuation band.

Valuation starts by defining the range where a willing buyer and seller would agree. This step looks at the external market conditions to determine where within the fundraising band you fall. When determining the band within a fundraising round there are several factors to consider:

These methods are weighted based on relevance to the stage of business where the earlier the stage the higher weighting applied to internal methods and the later the stage the more weighting toward external and cash flow methods.

We have identified that Forge stage of business fits into Band of Stage round.

Giving it a value of $10.5M - $22.5M

Restaurant labor crisis is structural, not cyclical. Robot-as-a-Service has proven product-market fit in adjacent verticals (Locus, Berkshire Grey in warehousing; Miso in kitchens). Forge's purpose-built cell + Recipe OS positions the category leader in front-of-line cooking.

The Berkus Method is a widely used framework for valuing pre-revenue, early-stage startups where limited financial data is available. Originally developed by Dave Berkus in the mid-1990s for the technology sector, it provides a structured way to estimate value based on a company’s progress across key business risk areas rather than speculative forecasts.

The model assigns scores (typically 0 - 10) to five key factors, each weighted equally and multiplied by a predetermined dollar amount. Traditionally, the maximum assigned per factor was set to $500,000, yielding a total valuation cap of $2,500,000. In 2016, Berkus updated the model to recognize that industry, geography, and market conditions may warrant adjustments to the cap or weighting.

Key Evaluation Criteria of the Berkus method are:

Sound Idea (foundational value)

Prototype (technology validation, reducing technical risk)

Quality Management Team (reducing execution risk)

Strategic Relationships (reducing market entry risk)

Product Rollout or Sales (reducing go-to-market and scaling risk)

Strengths:This method is straightforward making it ideal for early-stage assessments. It focuses on qualitative factors, allowing evaluators to consider elements other than historic traction and forecasts, which at early stages of a company’s development can be difficult to predict.

Limitations:Assuming equal weighting across all factors, can oversimplify the reality. Subjective judgment in scoring increases the risk of bias. Business model nuances may be overlooked, potentially leading to incomplete or misleading valuations. The accuracy of the method depends on selecting appropriate industry benchmarks to set valuation caps.

The Risk Factor Summation Method (RFS) is a structured valuation framework designed for early-stage companies with some operational visibility but still facing significant uncertainty. It scores a set of risk categories from -2 (significant risk) to +2 (significant strength), applying adjustments to a base valuation drawn from comparable companies.

Each point adjustment carries a fixed monetary value (Value of a Point), determined by taking the delta between low and high of the value band and dividing it by the delta of the total number of points (48). The cumulative adjustment, positive or negative, is then added to or subtracted from the base valuation to arrive at the final pre-money valuation.

This approach offers more granularity than purely qualitative models, capturing both business-specific and market-driven risks. It is particularly valuable when a company has begun operations but is not yet mature enough for heavy reliance on cash flow-based models.

Strengths:This method covers a wider range of business and market risks than Berkus or Scorecard, offering a more detailed view of both risks and strengths. Its transparent adjustment process helps ensure investor alignment.

Limitations:It gives equal weight to all risk categories, focuses more on risks than opportunities, and relies on skilled judgment and a solid base valuation, which can add complexity. It only focuses on risk exposure and not on the opportunity upside.

The Scorecard Valuation Method, also known as the Bill Payne Method, is one of the most widely used approaches by angel investors for valuing early-stage companies. This method benchmarks the target company against comparable startups that have recently raised funding, adjusting the average valuation based on company-specific strengths and weaknesses across multiple key factors.

The process starts by identifying 3 comparable companies in the same geography, sector, and stage, and identifying their average pre-money valuation. The target company is then scored against these comparables across multiple weighted factors, assigning a multiplier to each factor where 1.0x equals the comparable benchmark. The weighted scores are applied to the market average valuation to calculate the adjusted pre-money valuation.

Key Evaluation Factors and Weightings:

Strength of the Management Team (30%)

Size of the Opportunity (20%)

Product / Technology (20%)

{{ Competitive Environment (15%) }}

Marketing, Sales, Channels, Partnerships (5%)

Need for Additional Investment (5%)

Other (e.g. customer feedback, traction, Net Promoter Scores) (5%)

Strengths:This method is straightforward and easy to apply, with weightings that reflect the importance of each factor. It is widely used by angel investors and early-stage funds.

Limitations:It requires skill and judgment to score factors correctly and may miss certain risks or unique business aspects. It also doesn’t fully consider external market conditions.

Below are the 3 identified companies for comparison. Each should fall within the stage of business and band identified above to be a fair comparison for this method

Chef Robotics (Seed)

Robotic ingredient assembly for ghost kitchens. Seed round before later Series A scale-up.

Capital Raised: 2,500,000Date Raised: 2021 Seed

https://chefrobotics.ai

Karakuri (Seed)

UK robotic salad-and-bowl cells. Seed round before food-retail expansion.

Capital Raised: 1,400,000Date Raised: 2018 Seed

https://karakuri.com

Hyphen (Seed)

Automated kitchen platform for high-volume catering and ghost kitchens. Seed-stage robotic make-line.

Capital Raised: 3,000,000Date Raised: 2021 Seed

https://hyphen.ai

The Venture Capital Method, also referred to as the Exit Event Method, values a startup based on a future liquidity event such as an IPO or acquisition. This approach is widely used by venture capital investors when evaluating pre-revenue or early-stage companies with limited financial history.

The process starts by determining a credible exit value (terminal value) using comparable exit multiples or recent transactions in the target industry. For each comparable, apply a risk-adjustment factor, reflecting the probability of the target company achieving an outcome of that scale given business model fit, execution risk, and market conditions. Then apply relevant weighting to each comparable to reflect how representative it is for the target by stage, geography, and industry. The sum of Exit × Adjustment × Weighting across all comps gives a probability-weighted exit value that serves as the base anchor.

Next the required return multiple or internal rate of return (IRR) is establish, factoring in investment risk, time horizon, and exit probabilities. Target return multiples are based on risk. As a company moves up in stage of business the opportunity is de-risked. The selection of companies to compare too is done based on the appropriate band (Slide 9).

{{ Key Consideration: }}

Divide the estimated exit value by the target return multiple to derive the current pre-money valuation (Value = Exit Value ÷ Required Return Multiple)

The VC Method focuses exclusively on return expectations and does not directly incorporate operational or qualitative aspects of the business. Its output is driven entirely by exit assumptions and return requirements.

Strengths:This method aligns valuation with investor return expectations, making it useful for pre-revenue or early-stage companies. It offers a simple, transparent calculation framework that is easy to understand.

Limitations:It is highly sensitive to exit valuation assumptions, overlooks interim business performance and execution risk, and does not account for free cash flow or capital needs before exit.

Below are the 3 identified comparable stage companies that transacted in Band of the same industry as Forge for determining the valuation with the venture capital method.

{{ Venture Capital Method }}

{{ Key Consideration: }}

The DCF Method is heavily reliant on the quality and accuracy of projections. It assumes the business can reasonably forecast cash flows over multiple years, which may not hold true for early-stage ventures.

The Discounted Cash Flows (DCF) Method estimates valuation based on the present value of expected future cash flows. It is most useful for mature businesses with stable and predictable earnings.

Use forecasted financials to estimate annual free cash flows over a defined projection period (typically 5 years).

Determine an appropriate terminal value, by either applying the Perpetuity Growth Method (PGM) or Price-to-Earnings (PE) multiple based on comparable companies.

Apply a discount rate that reflects the company’s risk profile and stage of business.

Sum the present value of all projected cash flows and terminal value to derive the total business value.

Each future cash flow is discounted back to today using the formula:Present Value = Future cash flow in year number ÷ (1 + discount rate)^year number

Discount rates typically reflect the company’s cost of capital and risk. Higher risk warrants a higher discount rate.

Strengths:Provides a detailed, intrinsic valuation rooted in expected financial performance. Useful for established businesses with historical financials and visibility on future growth.

Limitations:Highly sensitive to assumptions. Small changes in growth rates, margins, or discount rates can significantly alter valuation. Less applicable for early-stage or pre-revenue companies due to lack of reliable forecasts.

The First Chicago Method is a scenario-based valuation approach that blends elements of Discounted Cash Flow and Comparable Company Analysis. It is used to evaluate companies by modeling three potential future outcomes, best case, base case and worst case.

Each case is assigned a change in free cash flow % which is applied to the DCF method as outlined above. The output of which is multiplied by a probability of occurring. The sum of the probability of occuring should be 100%. When all 3 outcomes are added together we have a weighted average probability of a DCF.

Value = (Best case value x best case probability) + (Base case value x base case probability) + (Worst case value x worst case probability)

{{ Key Consideration: }}

This method requires deep understanding of the business and its risks. It accounts for upside, downside, and most likely paths, but is only as good as the assumptions and inputs.

{{ Strengths: }}

Provides a detailed, probabilistic valuation that captures a range of outcomes. Useful for later-stage companies with enough history to model multiple scenarios.

{{ Limitations: }}

Requires significant data and effort to build. Results are sensitive to both probability weighting and scenario assumptions. Not suitable for early-stage, pre-revenue companies.

Best, base, and worst DCF cases are given probabilities; their weighted average is the value.

Projected free cash flows and a terminal assumption are discounted to today to derive enterprise and pre money value.

Projected free cash flows and a terminal assumption are discounted to today to derive enterprise and pre money value.

This document has been prepared for the purposes stated herein and should not be relied upon for any other purpose. This document provides a summary of the work undertaken by Top Tier Advisory and unless required by law, this document should not be provided to any third party without our prior written consent. In no event, regardless of whether consent has been provided, shall we assume any responsibility to any third party to which this document is disclosed or otherwise made available.

This document was prepared exclusively for internal use as at the date hereof and does not carry any right of publication or disclosure, in whole or in part, to any other party. This document is for discussion purposes only and is incomplete without reference to, and should be viewed solely in conjunction with, the oral briefing provided by the representatives of Top Tier Advisory.

The information provided in this document is based solely upon financial and non-financial information provided.

Whilst our work has involved a benchmark analysis, our engagement does not include either an audit or a review in accordance with International Standards on Auditing of the information used in the preparation of this valuation report. Accordingly, we assume no responsibility and make no representations with respect to the accuracy or completeness of any information used in the preparation of this report.

Budgets and forecasts relate to future events and are based on assumptions that may not remain valid for the whole or part of the relevant period. Consequently this information cannot be relied upon to the same

extent as that derived from audited accounts for completed accounting periods. We express no opinion as to how closely the actual results will correspond to those forecasts used in this presentation.

Market conditions and volatility of such markets make valuation exercises, of both company cash flows and financial instruments, extremely challenging and have created a significant potential range of assumptions

on risk-free rate, equity market risk premium and debt spreads. In addition, theoretical assumptions may not reflect reality. Subjectivity over key inputs to the cost of capital and capital and operating expenditure

assumptions, as well as underlying concerns about the impact of the economic upturns and/or downturn on the financial forecasts increases the complexity of the valuation analysis.

The benchmarking of companies, businesses and related cash flows is not a precise science and the conclusions arrived at in many cases will, of necessity, be subjective and dependent on the exercise of individual

Judgement as well as publicly available information to a certain extent. There is therefore no indisputable single value and we normally express the value as falling within a range at a point in time. Whilst we consider our benchmarks to be both reasonable and defensible based on the information available to us, others may place a different value on the benchmarks.