StarLifter, Inc.

What we have established three decisions, kept apart

1. 1 Identity verified Yes

   Form D related persons matched to the public record, then the company's own site verified by content. No step relies on the name.

   • Form D related persons Frederic B. Luddy, Sheila Gulati, Andrew Chedrick
   • Luddy founded ServiceNow and is named as StarLifter’s founder in its own newsroom
   • Gulati is a Tola Capital founder, and Tola led the announced seed
   • CIK 2156953 · accession 0002156953-26-000001 · Delaware
2. 2 Evidence sufficient to publish Not yet

   The inclusion bar: two or more independent sourced evidence families. This profile is reachable but not in the ranked index. It is a statement about how much evidence we hold, and about nothing else.

3. 3 Fit for a seed/Series-A sourcing buyer Qualified

   Institutional venture backing and a stage band inside seed..Series A are both evidenced below.

   Both legs hold under the single standard. (a) Tola Capital is a named institutional investor and published, on its own site, that it LED the round. (b) The latest financing event is that round and a source states its stage: Tola calls it a SEED. The $4,000,000 Form D (first sale 2026-05-27, filed 2026-10-08) is SMALLER than the announced $11.5M and its money moved BEFORE the announcement, so it is plausibly a tranche of the same round rather than a later, differently-staged one — the same test that leaves Clasp unknown, applied the same way. Note what that test does and does not claim: it says the filing does not EVIDENCE A LATER STAGE, not that the filing and the announcement are the same financing. That linkage is unverified and the records stay separate. What this verdict does NOT say: that we found anything. The round was public on 2026-07-01 and we filed the company on 2026-10-09. See the comparison: this is a verified company profile with no demonstrated sourcing advantage.

   Venture backing: evidenced · Stage band: seed — stated by the lead investor, 2026-07-02

   • tolacapital.com ↗ — The lead investor's own announcement: $11.5M seed, led by Tola Capital.
   • starlifter.ai ↗ — The company’s own newsroom, dating the same announcement 2026-07-01 and carrying a 2026-06-30 CNBC appearance. The SAME event as the line above, not a second confirmation of it.
   • sdbj.com ↗ — San Diego Business Journal: early enterprise design partners, and Luddy self-funding ~$10M before outside investors.
   • sec.gov ↗ — The Form D: $4,000,000 offering, $3,999,999 sold, first sale 2026-05-27.

   What the filing alone says

   A Delaware issuer at 12175 Visionary Way, Fishers IN sold $3,999,999 of a $4,000,000 Reg D offering, first sale 2026-05-27, filed 2026-10-08. Related persons: Frederic B. Luddy, Sheila Gulati, Andrew Chedrick. No round name, no investor list, no website, no description of the business.

   What we add

   Less than the first version of this entry claimed. Hermes struck most of it out and was right: "StarLifter, Inc." → starlifter.ai is a direct name match, and googling "Frederic B. Luddy ServiceNow" and "Sheila Gulati Tola Capital" is one search each, so reading the related-persons list is not differentiated work. Collecting the CNBC and SDBJ links is link collection, not analysis. What survives: connecting the $4,000,000 filing to the company that announced an $11.5M Tola-led round, which is an entity-level judgement no aggregator makes — and which we did NOT finish, because whether the $4M is a tranche of that round is still unknown. Honest residue: one unresolved connection and a tidy link list.

   Still unknown

   • Whether the $4M filing relates to the announced $11.5M seed. UNVERIFIED, and the amount difference does NOT settle it (J, 2026-10-11): an issuer may file for one tranche, or run more than one offering inside a financing, and no rule requires a single Form D to cover a whole round. The two are kept as separate, unlinked records because NOTHING LINKS THEM — the filing names no round, the announcements name no filing, and EDGAR holds exactly one filing for CIK 0002156953. Not because the comparison establishes impossibility.
   • Round size disagrees: Dealroom shows $12M at a $46M valuation against $11.5M.
   • Headquarters disagrees (filing: Fishers IN; PitchBook: Encinitas CA).
   • Whether it is raising again, which is the only thing that would make it a lead.

   Action it supports

   A BOOKMARK, not a lead — and the earlier wording ("watchlist it for the next round") contradicted this entry’s own unknowns, as Hermes pointed out: we list "whether it is raising again" as unknown and then recommended the action that depends on it. To become a lead this needs three things we do not have: a signal the company is actively raising, an estimated runway against $11.5M, and who holds pro-rata. It does NOT support sourcing this round, which closed and was announced by both parties three months before we arrived.

   Our arrival vs public

   100 days LATE. Publicly announced 2026-07-01 by the company and 2026-07-02 by the lead investor; our discovery decided 2026-10-09 from the filing.

   Research time

   not tracked

   Unresolved

   • Whether the $4M filing is part of the announced $11.5M seed — unresolved.
   • Why no second evidence family exists: no GitHub organisation, no npm or PyPI package, and /careers, /jobs, the Ashby board and the Greenhouse board all return 404 as of 2026-10-11. Checked, not assumed, and not worked around.

   What would overturn this: Evidence that the Tola round was a Series A or later, or that Tola did not lead it.

   Assessed 2026-10-11 for seed/Series-A sourcing.