kikitori

What we have established three decisions, kept apart

1. 1 Identity verified Yes

   The company’s own corporate-information page names the legal entity in both scripts, with an address. The domain was reached from the round’s coverage, not guessed: kikitori.co.jp does not resolve.

   • kikitori.jp title and og:site_name both read "kikitori"
   • kikitori.jp/company states the legal entity: 株式会社kikitori (kikitori Co., Ltd.)
   • Representative director 上村聖季; head office Toranomon 2-2-1, Minato-ku, Tokyo
   • Product "Nimaru", the agricultural distribution cloud named in the funding coverage
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. (a) Globis Capital Partners is a named institutional venture firm and the round’s lead, with Agribusiness Investment & Development joining. (b) The source states SERIES A for the only financing event we hold. QUALIFIED AND UNDELIVERABLE: the company clears the fit rule and NOT the inclusion bar, which is the separation A12 exists to make visible.

   Venture backing: evidenced · Stage band: series_a - stated by thebridge.jp for the 2026-09-17 event, the only financing event known to us

   • thebridge.jp ↗ — The round: Series A, ¥300M, Globis Capital Partners and Agribusiness Investment & Development, for the Nimaru agricultural distribution cloud.
   • kikitori.jp ↗ — The company’s own corporate page: legal entity, representative, address.

   What the filing alone says

   NOTHING. A Japanese company raising from Japanese investors is invisible to EDGAR by construction, so the Form D half of this product could never reach it.

   What we add

   A company absent from the index until now, recovered from evidence filed under its own investor; a content-verified domain; the legal entity read off its own corporate page in Japanese and English; and the ¥300M Series A correctly attributed to the company instead of to Globis.

   Still unknown

   • THE PUBLICATION BLOCKER, stated exactly: ONE sourced family (funding). The second was looked for and is not there - /careers and /recruit both return 404, the homepage links no GitHub, GitLab, npm or PyPI, no Ashby/Greenhouse/Lever board exists under "kikitori", and the npm and PyPI registries both 404 on the name. Those are the searches performed; none of them proves no hiring surface exists.
   • The amount is the gate’s USD figure (~$2M) for a ¥300M round; the exact rate and date of conversion are not stated by the source.
   • Whether it is raising again - not searched beyond the round itself.

   Action it supports

   A watchlist entry a buyer could act on only with more work: a Series A Japanese agri-tech SaaS with a named domestic lead, which we cannot publish because we hold one evidence family. Useful to a buyer with a Japan mandate; thin for anyone else.

   Our arrival vs public

   24 DAYS. Announced 2026-09-17, entity created 2026-10-11T08:11Z. Arrival latency, not advance notice.

   Research time

   part of the ~20 minutes of elapsed execution time for the A22 pass.

   Unresolved

   • No second evidence family exists on the surfaces we can read, so this company is qualified for the buyer and invisible to the buyer at the same time.

   What would overturn this: A source stating a later financing event with a different stage band, or evidence that Globis did not lead.

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