Evidence Decay

Evidence Decay is the phenomenon where previously valid evidence loses relevance over time. In allocator intelligence, evidence decays quickly because decision systems change: staff turnover, policy updates, pacing constraints, market conditions, and mandate shifts. An old signal (“they were active,” “they liked this strategy,” “we have a warm route”) can become misleading if not refreshed with new proof.

Evidence decay is not the same as “data aging.” It includes behavioral and governance relevance. A contact can still exist, but the pathway can be dead. A mandate can still be written, but the sleeve can be paused. Evidence must be time-stamped, refreshed, and weighted accordingly.

How allocators define evidence decay risk drivers

Teams evaluate evidence decay through:

• Time since verification: recency of contact, role, and pathway checks
• Organizational change: leadership transitions and reorg footprints
• Mandate drift: subtle changes in criteria and constraints
• Market regime shift: liquidity conditions and pacing recalibration
• Behavioral changes: responsiveness patterns and engagement velocity
• Source reliability: whether evidence came from direct artifacts or hearsay
• Refresh cadence: whether updates occur on a schedule or ad hoc

Allocator framing:
“Is this evidence still true enough to make a decision—or are we acting on a snapshot that no longer matches reality?”

Where evidence decay matters most

• long fundraising cycles where conditions change mid-process
• large coverage universes with many inactive targets
• allocators with frequent staff turnover
• strategies sensitive to cycle and liquidity conditions

How evidence decay changes outcomes

Managed evidence decay:

• reduces false positives and wasted cycles
• improves targeting precision and timing accuracy
• prevents relationship-based overconfidence
• improves credibility of scoring and forecasting

Unmanaged evidence decay:

• stale pathways drive repeated non-response
• mandate mismatches produce “interesting but not for us”
• confidence scores become inflated and wrong
• higher drop-off risk due to late discovery of changes

How allocators evaluate discipline

Confidence increases when teams:

• enforce timestamps and recency rules for evidence usage
• apply time decay weights in scoring frameworks
• refresh key evidence proactively (role, mandate, budget, sponsor)
• prioritize evidence from direct artifacts over impressions
• treat silence as a signal requiring re-verification, not assumption

What slows decision-making

• poor recency tracking and missing verification timestamps
• reliance on one-time meetings as durable proof
• ignoring org and mandate change signals
• refresh cadence too slow for the rate of change

Common misconceptions

• “Evidence is evidence” → evidence has a half-life.
• “If it was true last year, it’s probably true” → allocator systems change fast.
• “Silence means they’re busy” → silence can mean your evidence decayed.

Key allocator questions during diligence

• What is the recency threshold for treating evidence as valid?
• What evidence classes decay fastest and why?
• What triggers proactive refresh (org change, mandate hints, silence)?
• How are stale signals downgraded in scoring?
• What is the evidence standard for upgrades?