This article explains why intuition, pitch quality, and capital signals misclassify scientific ventures, how narrative driven evaluation creates false positives and false negatives, and why TRLs do not equal readiness. It introduces structural evaluation as a system level approach that aligns evidence, industrialization, market formation, capital logic, and uncertainty to support better decisions by investors, institutions, and venture builders.

Capital is not neutral in science driven ventures. It reshapes timelines, incentives, governance, and decision order the moment it enters the system. This article explains why more capital often increases risk in deep tech, how venture capital assumptions collide with scientific reality, and why stalled ventures are usually structurally misaligned, not weak. A framework for aligning capital type, timing, and structure with scientific uncertainty.

Why do science ventures fail despite successful funding rounds? This article explains why confusing fundraising with capital acquisition quietly destroys scientific progress. It shows how capital treated as validation amplifies pressure instead of reducing uncertainty, why venture capital logic fails in science-driven innovation, and how capital sequencing, not storytelling, determines which ventures survive long term.