Your 'OT MSSP THESIS' sounds like a doctoral dissertation, not a compelling vision. While the problem of archaic remote operations in O&G is real, your 'story' is about an M&A strategy, not a company being built to solve it.

Listing a bunch of impressive oil and gas logos on slide 9 is cute, but it's not a market size. Give me actual TAM, SAM, and SOM figures; I can't invest in your Rolodex.

Your 'business model' on slide 11 is a detailed M&A transaction anatomy, not a scalable revenue engine for a tech company. And claiming 'minimal fees' for Cross/Section Capital is great for you, but what about the actual profit margins of this 'venture'?

You've got some heavy hitters with M&A and industry experience on slide 7, which is great for an investment firm. But it's unclear who's actually rolling up their sleeves to *build* the tech and *run* the operations of this new entity.

Your '400% Average EV expansion' and '150M Total EV accretion' on slide 5 is Cross/Section Capital's track record, not traction for *this* venture. Your Go-to-Market is literally 'carve-out a remote operations team' – that's an acquisition strategy, not a sales plan.

The design is clean, if a bit bland, but the text is dense and swimming in M&A jargon like 'CIM' and 'recapitalization.' It reads like a legal memo for a private equity fund, not a captivating pitch for a disruptive tech company.